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 =)

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.

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 :>

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 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.

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!