James Stephen H. Balbuena

University of the Philippines Debate Society

Simple standards on weighing arguments:

1. Which argument has the best impact?

2. Which argument is more feasible?

Remember, that both are equally important.

Even if you claim that your argument will save the world, if you haven't provided any mechanism why this is true and how you will achieve it, it won't fly.

Even if you have proven that your argument is certainly true, if you haven't explained its implications are relevant in the debate, it doesn't matter.

Everything else depends on your engagements for this is a debate. You also have a burden to disprove, compare, or co-opt the other team's values.

Lastly, I do not appreciate speakers who speak like they are in a sprint. In debates, clarity is important. It doesn't matter whether you recited the whole matter book if your opponents and your judge didn't get it.

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 have been debating and judging competitively for roughly two years and a half across multiple intervarsities and in both national and international tournaments. Much of my experience, especially in adjudication, is centered around British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools, and Australs formats, although I also have a background in judging other debate formats such as Junior Debate and Public Forum. Regarding what I consider to be effective argumentation, I value the logical soundness of a claim versus evidence that isn’t nuanced and well-integrated into the analysis. This means that I am more likely to be persuaded by sufficiently analyzed arguments over largely assertive material or impacts. Moreover, I strongly value good engagement and willingness to weigh and accept trade offs instead of being insistent on responses. My decisions are based on which team successfully wins the most important voting issues that are usually determined by what teams explicitly or implicitly agree to be important in the round. While I think that style is something that should be holistically assessed with analysis, I definitely appreciate speakers with good clarity and structure that makes it easy to track and credit where appropriate.

Highlight Achievements:

Open Finals Judge, EFL Finals Judge, 30th KIDA National Championship (Korea Spring Nationals 2022)

Open Octofinals Chair, Philippine Intercollegiate Debating Championship 2022 (PH AP Nationals)

Invited Adjudicator, Gold Quarterfinals Judge, Doxbridge World Schools Debating Championship 2022

1. Daniel Joash Cerrado
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 havedebated 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. While the second rebuttal speaker is generally responsive to constructive material, engagement with the provided responses is always welcome and helpful.

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?

I generally decide debates on the basis of which team wins the most important issue(s) of the round, based on what teams explicitly or implicitly agree to be important in the round.

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

I value clear mechanisms, established premises, effective responses, and good engagement and weighing.

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 =)

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.

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

For Original Oratory, three keys in content: Importance, Relatability, Originality. Speakers can emphasize the significance of the speech. (for example, Why is it related to the society? How does it affect the world? Why people should care about it?) Speakers can involve audience in the speech, relate the issue with audience. In delivery, non-verbal: eye contact, gestures are the most important. Verbal delivery is important as well: pace, intonation, pitch, tone, volume, pronunciation.

For debate, 1 constructive part, I focus more on Logic, arguments, impacts, each team should clearly know their burden in debate. Premise-contention-evidence-logic-impact should be connected. 2 rebuttal, teams should attack more contentions from opponents instead of extending more case. 3 summary, when teams cannot convince me to buy their clashes, I will conclude clashes from my point of view.

Really appreciate teams who do impact weighing!