I highly appreciate speeches that engage with the core issues of the debate. There should be effective weighing and compelling argumentation, with sufficient substantiation, to fully credit a speech.

For an argument to be logical and strong enough, I usually evaluate through the following standards: relevance, likelihood or feasibility, impact, and exclusivity.

In terms of style, I prefer those who delivers a clear and properly structured speech. The speed should not be an issue as long as you convey your message well.

I enjoy well-reasoned arguments and dislike arguments without substance. They do not have to perfect, and I am glad to provide feedback whenever possible to improve this skill. I also value creativity with regard to how these arguments are delivered. I look forward to seeing how debaters and orators persuade me

Thank You =)

Hope debaters in my room can speak peacefully, not speaking too fast. And I' m very like the characterizations and mechanisms on how it works when we discuss some topics.

Hello!

1. I prefer concise and coherent speeches, please try to follow the allotted minutes per speaker

2. Substantiated and structured arguments are highly appreciated. Include a premise, diagnosis, examples, and conclusion for your arguments.

3. During crossfire, have relevant and important discussions. Nuanced questions and answers would be great.

Thanks :>

Hi! My name is Tonie and I've been judging and debating in the British Parliamentary Format and other 3v3 formats. I believe that the logical proof of the argument is most important in order to claim the truth of impacts or importance of the same. While facts and numbers prove a premise (and are appreciated), I believe abstracting the logic is always stronger as it does not rely on the truth or believability of the fact. My other standards for judging debates also include engagement across different material as all debates are meant to be dynamic. I specifically enjoy when speakers make an effort to bring the topic outside just theory and impact it, whether principally or tangibly, to people. I'm happy to provide comments on substantive content or style. I hope all speakers are practice equity when engaging with others. :)

Jay Postrado used to be a WSDC, and Parliamentary debater during his highschool years. He believes that effective communication comes in being concise, understandable to the common masses, and using the simplest of words in the most effective way.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Clarisse Tan
2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

1. I have never judged debate before.
2. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
3. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
4. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
5. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

1. Tell us about your debating experience.

1. I have never debated competitively before.
2. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
3. I debated other formats for less than a year.
4. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
5. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

1. What is your speaking speed preference?

1. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
2. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
3. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
4. Fast speed (200+wpm)

1. How much do you know about the topic?

1. I coach debate and have researched this topic
2. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
3. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
4. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
5. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

1. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

1. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument
2. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
3. I’m not sure.
4. Other (please specify) But they are expected to respond during crossfire.

1. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

1. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
2. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.
3. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
4. Other (Please Specify)

1. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

For me the first consideration is obviously the material given + how they prove it (this includes constructive, rebuttals, impacts, weighing, etc.). The second is how it relates to the round (i.e. strategy, how relevant is it, is it responsive, comparative to the other speakers). Lastly, I consider all of these in application to the technicalities of the format — for example in a WSDC format, there’s an expectation of style and strategy; in the PF Format, there’s an expectation of evidence and engagement (crossfire).

1. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

Nope!

I'll come into rounds with a blank-slate mentality. All used to evaluate your arguments as individual speakers and as a team are all that you are going to say in your speeches. As such, I highly appreciate speakers that are comparative, weighted, and impacted.

I will default to the utilitarian evaluation absent any attempt of framing why your arguments are important.

As with any other utilitarian argument, K's and Theories are welcome and I will give them due respect ONLY depending on the length speakers use it to benefit their cases. This means that I value explicitness over implicitness in order to deliver the most impartial decision possible and avoid any situations where I have to step in. You need to explain why your Theory or K comes first as a filter versus against all the other arguments that will come after it.

I pay attention to the format specifics and speaker role. As such, I would appreciate it if the important "winning" part of your speeches does appear in constructive speakers. It will be hard for me to credit a winning argument/card launched during CF or FF if it is not in the constructive summaries.

It will be most beneficial for you to narrow down impacting/comparatives in your FF speeches just so you don't leave any room for me to use my own judgements in appreciating impacts :)

I am very open to using the full range of speaker scores. The average is 27.4 and the highest I've given is 29.

Please be respectful, especially in CFs! Have fun :)

My Judging Highlights (do note that I've spent all my time in debate under the British Parliamentary/Asian Parliamentary)

- 10th Best Judge, United Asians Debating Championships 2020, (Asian Parliamentary) (Asian Region)

- Overall Best Judge, Proxime Debate Open 2020, 60 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Philippines, open for all countries)

- 4th Best Judge, Macquarie Pre-Australs 2020, 50 Teams (Australs Format) (Open for all)

- 4th Best Judge, Taiwan Debate Open 2020 , 50 Teams (British Parliamentary) (Taiwan, open for all countries)

For PF:

- 6 Rounds for Stanford Invitational

0 I have been constantly hired to judge and provide feedback for the training rounds of asian JV and Novice teams. I would love to bring my experience over, learn and improve in the PF format.

For other S&D Events:

Debate Champion, National Population Development Debates, National, Philippine Department of Education, 2019

I believe all the debaters have make an exhaustive preparation on their cases and long for make the best of them in every round. But I highly suggest debaters pacing themselves when providing a speech in order to avoid slurring words together and to make the content more understandable since audiences and judges are not machine and they’re not knowing about everything for every motion. Make sure ur essential linkage,impact and evidence are understandable.

I think aggressiveness in debate can be good. It can really make the debate more dynamic and active. However, I believe a good debaters can differentiate aggressive and rude.Debaters who cross the line and disrupt the order will be punished.

Which team can provide more solid logic link (probability) and concrete impact (magnitude) can win this debate. Evidence is also important for me to weigh the exact impact from both team but I do believe it means little if the linkage and impact are underdeveloped.

1. What types of debate have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?

PF and BP. Have 6 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ WSDA, and 10+ DLC tournaments. Also, I did a half-year TA experience at Speechcraft in Chengdu, mainly for PF debate and speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I would consider the following three sections:

First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).

Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).

Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.

I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.

If you don't have a framework and a clear winning condition, then you'll probably be at disadvantage of the round. I want the framework to thoroughly explain what you are aiming for for this debate, so please work hard on that part.

A valid argument has a claim+evidence+impact.

Don't expect me to fill in and understand logic fallacies in your speach, try to explain each and every points completely and logically to me.

Impact calculus is important. Please stress the impact of every single argument, if you could.

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.

My Pronouns are They/Them/He/Him

Put me on the email chain: shaohan.zhou.2016@gmail.com

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards) I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above.

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.

If you have any questions whatsoever, don't feel afraid to ask