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.

Generally, I value content more than manner and method, as I am flexible to different speaking styles.

For framing, I value analysis and logic in characterizing more than face-value matter or evidence.

Engagement and comparatives of arguments are very important, as it is easier to just prove why claims are likely to be true.

Finally, good rhetoric, for me, makes a speech memorable.

George Gao

a.I have never judged debate before.

b.I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c.I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d.I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

√ e.I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

a.I have never debated competitively before.

b.I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c.I debated other formats for less than a year.

d.I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

√ e.I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

a.Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b.Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

√ c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d.Fast speed (200+wpm)

a.I coach debate and have researched this topic

b.I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c.I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

√ d.I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e.I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

a.Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

√ b.No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c.I’m not sure.

d.Other (please specify)

a.It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

√ b.It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c.It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d.Other (Please Specify)

· Valid logic link in the speech that has not been successfully challenged by opponents.

· Magnitude of impact, summarizing the impact of all arguments.

· Fulfillment of duty (engagement, status quo, etc)

I study electronic information engineering in university, so I may not have enough knowledge about complicated economic and social science terms.

I generally look at how well the teams have fulfilled their burden in the debate. The burden may vary per debate. The burden may be set by the teams for themselves, it may be implied by the spirit of the motion and went uncontested throughout the debate, or the burden may be placed by the opponents and implicitly agreed to by the team by engaging with it and not contesting it. Oftentimes, the burden is what the motion is asking the teams to do. Is the burden to solve a problem? Is the burden to not solve a problem but to prove that the motion is a bad idea?

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.

mechanism and impact, good rebuttals are for sure needed; teams providing weighing with persuasive reasons might be preferred, in a way that I think this provides crucial advantage in proving what is the most important contention or clash in the debate and thus can win more credit.

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.