Hi, Lois here!

It's a pleasure to be your judge.

I believe communication is relatively key in a debate. I urge debaters to politely express themselves in an informative and educative way.

I would base my paradigm on your articulation, analysis, framework, evidence, impact, and delivery.

Express your ideas clearly and more audibly. In order to avoid a distorted claim, try having a holistic framework and build a well-structured argument on the framework. Support your reasonings and arguments with substantial and well-cited analytical and empirical evidence. Be precise and more oriented in your organization.

Have a well-planned speech and stay within the said time.

All the best!!

I care most about the round being respectful.

Ultimately the quality of your arguments and their construction and delivery is what I am most interested in.

Debate is wonderful opportunity to demonstrate your reasoning and oral capability.   Your practice and attention to detail will be evident!

I competed in team policy debate in high school and have prior experience judging team policy debate.

I judge based on which arguments are best presented and supported, both with sound reasoning and supportive evidence. Main arguments must be brought up early in the debate round so both sides have sufficient time to address them. I consider dropped arguments to be conceded arguments. You don't have to win every argument to win the round. Focus on the arguments you think are sufficient for winning the round.

Be confident, pursuasive, polite, and truthful. Look at the judge as much as possible. ! am sensitive to rudeness and dodging questions.

I will not read any materials or evidence unless I initiate the request.

Hello! I am a full time speech and debate coach and have been for well over a decade. I'm likely to be familiar and comfortable with whatever style of argumentation you prefer, and will do my best to be generous in my interpretation of your speaking. I flow, and I will use my flow to make my decision. I'm impressed by creativity, clarity, and passion - show me these things and you'll be very happy with your speaker points. Here are a few general bits of advice that should apply across the board.

Description is more powerful than jargon. For example, "The contention's impact lacks uniqueness" is a very vague thing to say in a debate. "There is already a war in Europe now" is clearer and shows me you understand the content of the debate.

Speed is ideas communicated per minute, not words per minute. Speed is great! More arguments means more depth and complexity. That's all lost if you give up on the basics of speech to shave off a few seconds. Your spread should sound like your normal voice, just faster. Same rhythms, pauses, all that. If you slip into a monotone spew to get through your evidence, you may as well not read that evidence. 

Win the debate before making them lose. You win the debate by being right about your points. You don't win the debate by proving the other side is wrong. Of course it's important to engage with the other side and show flaws in their reasoning, but defend your house first. 

Be kind. Take turns in crossfire. Be considerate with evidence, timers, and so on. Don't make it personal, don't take it personal. At the end of the day, you're arguing against the other side's ideas, not against them as people. The best debaters know how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Good luck, have fun, and smile. You've got a lot to be proud of! Just showing up to a debate tournament takes a lot of preparation and courage, and I'm glad you're here!

One more thing...let's talk about evidence. There is a lot of confusion, stress, and bad behavior surrounding evidence. In general, you should be using cited evidence to give credibility to your arguments. "According to my research," "The experts say," and similar phrases mean the same thing as "In my opinion." In other words, not much. 

When you use cited evidence, you need to make it available to all other participants in the debate. The judge might ask to see it after the round to help make their decision. Your opponents might ask to look at it more closely. If this happens, you have a minute to find it and give it to them. If you can't, that's a pretty big hit to your credibility, so try to stay organized.

These "evidence checks" are not opportunities to argue outside of speech time. If you ask for evidence and the other team doesn't give you what you're looking for, bring this up during your next speech. Explain the flaws in the evidence, or what its absence means for the debate. This procedure is a privilege, not a right. If you are bickering or making gratuitous evidence requests, I will stop allowing evidence checks.

Lacking cited evidence means a point is unproven, not untrue. If you don't provide evidence to the contrary, then we all just shrug and use our best judgement.

Being deliberately misleading about evidence is unethical. This applies to fabricating evidence and deceptive editing that changes the meaning of a text (like deleting "not" from the sentence "The EU is not beneficial"). If you think someone is being unethical, tell your coach. If you have proof of unethical behavior during the debate, the round stops and the judge determines whether or not a violation has occurred. It's a very serious accusation with serious consequences for everyone involved, so never do it lightly or to gain an advantage.

It's not unethical to misunderstand something, exaggerate, or simply not have cited evidence for one of your points. Mistakes happen, especially when you're just getting started. The correct thing to do when you think there's a problem with the other side's evidence is to explain what's wrong with it in your speech time. Let the coaches and judges worry about the "rules," and you focus on debating your very best.

1. What is your debate background?
Debated in primary and high schools.
Debated in university. 
coached adult students.

2. How do you judge?

Approach to judging - flow debate judge, I use an offense-defense paradigm.

I look at your argument, how you deliver, your behavior and your ability to put points and facts across. Your persuasion abilities are an added advantage (Ethos, Pathos and Logos). With impact analysis even better. Please don't bring lies for evidence, you honestly don't want me to question your evidence or look at it if its false.

3. Please explain other specifics about your judging style.

Rating from a scale of  1-5:
Speed / rate of delivery - 3, Normal speech speed is okay. 
Kritik (1 acceptable to 5 unacceptable) - 1
Counterplans  (1 acceptable to 5 unacceptable) - 1
Quantity of arguments (1 few well developed arguments to 5 the more arguments the better) - 3, your ability to clarify and support your key arguments. It's not about saying a bunch of points but how you deliver your points and how your points hold water.
Communication skills - 3, I am willing to support anything as long as it isn’t offensive/discriminatory in any way. 
Topicality (I am willing to vote on topicality:1 always to 5 seldom) - 2
Conditional negative positions (1 acceptable to 5 unacceptable) - 2
Debate theory arguments (1 acceptable to 5 unacceptable) - 1
Providing evidence both empirical and analytical (1 not necessary to 5 always necessary) - 3

As you present your case, try your best to refute your opponents arguments. I personally will keep my opinions and feelings out of the debate.

Affirmative: advocates for the argument. They are for the topic. 
Negative: opposes, they are against the topic at hand. 

Argumentation, Interaction and team balance are required. You need a structure of argumentation. Organized speeches, with proper preparation. Debate is an exchange of ideas between two parties. It’s not about how fluent you are in speaking a language nor how good you are at starting a fight but it’s about who is the better debater. 
Your ability to elaborate your ideas whilst invalidating your opponent’s ideas determines if you are a good debater. 

To have a proper argument:
* You should establish your line of argument or claim. 
* Why your declaration is true.  
* Why what you are saying matters more than your opponent’s claim. 

I will ignore any new arguments introduced for the first time in the final rebuttal or summary, as this is not fair on the other opponent, for they may not have time to attend to the new argument at hand ( A new argument presented in any of the final 2 speeches will be disregarded) . 

Use Final focus to your advantage; highlight your main points, weigh both sides, say why your argument holds water compared to the opponents. Team work is a plus. Team chemistry is important. Your speeches must flow from the first speaker to the last. Consistency is key.

Debaters should chronologically outline their argument and provide concrete evidence is a must in order to win a debate. The debater must effectively defend arguments as well as counter the assertations of the opposing team, failure to do so insinuates that they are correct. Above all everything should be done civilly. Have fun and good luck!

I have some experience in my judging career and I am willing to to be open minded and welcome to enriching my experience. I have come to accept that when judging a debate, speech or any form of public speaking i have to put aside my own experience in daily life and focus on what the speaker is saying. I will not discriminate any race, religion or dressing. I will judge fairly according to the points presented by the speaker how they were able to put across their points, their emotions and their arguments as well. As a judge I play an important role in supporting students educational and competitive endeavors. 

There different types of speech and debate events and each and every event has its own goal and should be judged according to the requirements of the event. I do have knowledge of different types of public speaking and having experience in a particular event  like debate as a student in my past. As a judge among other aspects i am particularly interested in the students structure of presentation, team work and organisation

Finally i follow the 3C's  method of compliment, criticize and correct. Even if a team doesn't win im sure they'd like to know what they did wrong , what they could have done and how to improve themselves in the future. 

I love respectful debates.

Debaters should focus on debating the resolution.Belittling opponents will not be tolerated!

Arguments should be well developed and coherent.

Be sure to provide substantial evidence that is relevant to the topic and explain how it relates to your argument.

Inasmuch, as you will be rushing against time to present your arguments, "Do not chew words." Speak clearly and audibly.

Refute arguments politely, giving each other time to speak.

New evidences and new arguments are not allowed in the FF.

Deliver your speeches in a convincing manner, accompanied with great reasoning and logic.

I'm an independent debate coach in Shenzhen and Huizhou, before that I debated and coached policy in USA at high school and university level. This philosophy is intended for PF tournaments in China and to guide students to do well in general.

Overall, I'm looking for balanced debate performances that emphasize great public speaking, confidence, logical arguments, proficient use of evidence, and persuasive weighing.

In the constructive speech, make sure that the titles and warrants to your contentions are read clearly.

In the rebuttal speech, try to generate offense and don't forget to cross-apply relevant data/warrants from your constructive speech.

In the summary speech, make choices. Don't just summarize the debate. Start with an overview that crystallizes the debate by identifying the key clashes or important issues. Start the weighing process. Why is the clash that you are winning important? Then, move on to the line-by-line. Defend the contentions that you intend to win the debate on by rebutting the opponent's rebuttals. Remember, the final focus is built on the summary speech, so it's worth taking prep time to align with the second speaker's strategy.

In the final focus, crystalize the debate. This would sound something like this: "The benefits of the UMT clearly outweigh the harms because confronting inequality has a far greater impact than a small reduction in business investment; it's also the right thing to do." Then weigh the debate using criteria like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probability, ethics, and turns. Finally, extend some of your key data points or warrants and rebut the most pressing points from your opponent.

In crossfire, have a goal. In the first crossfire, a good goal would be to prove to the judge that a few of the premises of your case are true. e.g. inequality is a serious problem, the exit tax stops capital flight, etc. In the second crossfire, it's a good idea to try to prove that some key elements of the opponent's case are wrong. You can do this by showing a contradiction or disputing facts. In the grand crossfire, it's time to focus on the clashes. Show that you're winning them and which one is most important. In terms of style, I prefer that you let each other answer, that you don't ask too long of questions or answer for too long, and that you don't waste too much time asking for evidence. Write questions before cross-fire starts.

Overall, I'll hold debaters accountable for what's on the flow. If you don't extend something, you won't get credit for it. And, when you extend something, I expect a warrant and impact to come with it. Get in the habit of saying 'because', 'for example', and 'this is important because'.

Have fun, and try to have a growth mindset. I'll give you feedback, and I hope that you approach it with an open-mind. That being said, I do believe that "pull beats push". In other words, you know what you want feedback on and you shouldn't be afraid to ask. Consider asking questions like: "How could I have persuaded you that x = y?" or "Why didn't you find x point important to your decision?". General questions like "How can I improve?" are less effective than specific questions about the debate or your performance.

If you have any further questions that the ballot or post-round discussion didn't answer, feel free to contact me on

WeChat: m123farmer

1. Judge's Name- Vincent Gaviyao

2. Tell us about your debating experience

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience

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

4. What I'd your speed preference?

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

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

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

7. How important is the flow(your notes) in making your decision?

What do you write down in your notes?

a. It's very important, l take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely on my notes

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

portant facts.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on three speeches rebuttal, crossfires, and summary. As long as you do well in these three speeches, you are guaranteed success.

I usually decide the winner of the speech based on relevance, relatability, and originality. The contestants who show the greatest emphasis on these three sections win the round.

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

Lastly, make sure to do your research and prepare extensively before entering the round. Good luck and remember to have fun, everyone!

In short, I appreciate a good and logical narrative. Longer, here's an unorganized list of comments:

ü Assume I know nothing about the topic or what abbreviations stand for;

ü I like policy and critical debate;

ü Please no progressive arguments or spreading.

ü Keep the jargon to a minimum. I don't know what a counterplan is.

ü Fairness can be an impact;

ü Explicit clash over implicit clash;

ü Analysis over evidence;

ü I won't vote on evidence being bad if it was not indicted in a speech;

ü I'll tolerate ridiculous arguments because they should be easy to answer anyway.

ü I highly prefer debaters who speak at a slow conversational and clear pace.

ü Please be respectful to each other in the round and remember to have fun.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

I am a judge with lots of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the US. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.

I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

Note that i check how well a team understands the resolution and how well you bring it to light.
I pay close attention to a team’s depth of analysis in line with how logical and effective the evidence provided is.
To make sure all points are responded to clearly during a clash.
I will only sign the ballot for the team with the best material in the context of the round.
Please always keep the round educational and non-toxic.
Make sure you do your work properly before the start of the round.

As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on fostering a positive and educational environment for all participants. I value respectful and thoughtful discourse, where debaters present their arguments clearly and explain why they believe their arguments should prevail in the debate.

In order to make a compelling argument, I expect debaters to provide a claim supported by relevant data and a warrant. It is important for debaters to cite their sources and be prepared to provide a full citation if requested.

Since debate is a value-based activity, both sides should establish a value and a value criterion. I encourage debaters to not only present these components but also to provide a comprehensive explanation of why and how their position is superior in the debate. While it is essential for the negative debater to present their own position, I believe that direct clash with the affirmative case is more persuasive than presenting negative contentions in isolation.

I prefer debates that prioritize effective communication over speed. It is crucial for debaters to be heard and understood, rather than rushing through their speeches. If you notice that I am having difficulty following your speed, I kindly request that you slow down for better comprehension.

In conclusion, I strive to create a welcoming and inclusive space for all debaters. I believe in the power of respectful dialogue and aim to provide constructive feedback to help participants grow. Let us engage in fruitful and enjoyable debates together.

- Emmanuel Agyekum

I have been judging and coaching Public Forum Debate for roughly a decade, paying special attention to the structure and quality of evidence of the speakers to determine who was the most compelling. 

First, I look at the framework and definitions set out by the side on the resolution. As those are laid out, I then listen to how tightly structured and interconnected the contentions and sub-points are. Do they address the resolution? Is there quality evidence from reliable sources to support them? Are there thorough explanations as to why they would support a PRO or CON ballet? This organization of though and words is critical to laying out a strong case and to convince me of a particular side's argument.

In the rebuttal, I look for a countering of all the other teams point and sub-points, and even better if you can twist some of those arguments to support your side. Over the years, I have seen my strongest students take the rebuttal role and have a great deal of success in their competitions by really taking control at this stage. 

Crossfires can play a decisive role for me if clear inroads and advantages are make by in a majority of these rounds. A contentious and aggressive crossfire if fine if done respectfully, but I will not weigh a crossfire heavily if it devolves into an interruption-filled shouting match. Crossfires are times to turn their opponents' words against them with skill and intellect. Those are moments that can win debates. Crossfires should also be approached as woven into the side's overall narrative and strategy.

Teams should get stronger as the rounds go on, so in the summary and final focus, the superior preparation and research of the better team usually shines through. The team with a cohesive beginning, middle and end meticulously planned out and able to take advantage of opponents' mistakes rate highly with me.

I have taught courses in presentation skills, debate, public speaking, etc, in my past teaching careers. This is the second time that I've judged this event.

As always, a wise debater would slow down slightly in front of me. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed is okay. But I really do prefer listening to rounds conducted at something more about a natural pace.I don't have a preference as long as they have credible evidence and it applies to the round.

I may need to know about the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for, so make sure it's explained. I'm visible regarding reactions to specific arguments, and it will be obvious if I’m confused about what is going on.

If you're debating policy, try to have some original thoughts. I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

Meanwhile, I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident, or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun.

For the few years as a debate judge i have throughly enjoyed every momement of the tournaments ,and i have realized the critical role that i play in supporting students educational and competitive endevors .I apprriate a well put argument (debate )surported with a solid framework that provides justification for the topic in argument and the state importance of the argument . At the end of the debate i will determine who did the best job in debating ,which is centered on argumentation and not purely persuasive speaking. i consider the major arguments in the round and how they were refuted . As a judge i also consider the clarity of what the contastants are physically doing in the performance in order to also judge if the physical performance is enhancing the interpretation of the story . I do not let my personal views shape the outcome of the decision and i evaluate only the argumentation presented by the competing debaters .It is always my pleasure to give out constructive feedback at the end of the debate in order to help student improve and develope lacking skills , wishing everyone a successful debate and the best to every team !!!

Hi there ;),

Nice to meet you!

We are all here to learn and have fun, so let your submissions be educative, informative, and, most importantly, without using "strong and or bad" language. Let's try to have a fun but educative and safe round. Be nice!

Be precise in your submissions and do ensure effective communication. Be audible and clear enough to be heard and understood. And also provide excellent reasoning backed by substantial and specific evidence. Speed is okay; you must, however, be understood to progress.

For me, a well-developed argument is always more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Every speech matters. And it's all about fair play. Build strong arguments and stay in the allotted time. Do extend your arguments, and don't lie in FF.

It's okay to ask for evidence, but make sure you use it. Expatiate on it, so I get it from your perspective. We all don't think alike.

Do not orally prompt your partner or distract them. You can always wait to get your message across later. Patience is key.

NB: The focus should be on learning. Do not focus on attacking or disrespecting a person's flaw or style. Respect is paramount! Be graceful, be nice! Be Confident!

Name: Nisbert Mutema

Age: 23

College:  Anhui University of technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): full-time student

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

Since 2020 I’ve been involved in the following debates:

·       I was a judge in the NSDA debate tournaments

·       I also participated in the SPSDC debate tournaments

·       Participated in the NHDLC tournaments

2.     Sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

From my personal view, I value depth and breadth in the statements that the debaters are making. There is no need for me as a judge to decide which team wins based on my personal beliefs. I believe that debates are mainly evidence-based and also the weight of the impacts on our daily living. The main thing is to be able to support your arguments and weigh them well in order to win. Demonstrating the clash points between the opposing sides and address why/how your side is coming out ahead on that point or how your defense stands up against their arguments. 

3.     How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast-talking is okay I don’t mind it as long as I am hearing what you’re saying. It might be a good thing in a way of maximizing the usage of speech time. But make sure you guys are polite to each other.

As a creative judge, my paradigm follows an imaginative approach,embarking on a journey where ideas are celebrated, curiosity is fostered, and innovation is the cornerstone. I believe in inspiring an atmosphere that cherishes openness and unrestricted thinking.

I am interested in having competitive rounds with students who display the passion of having a great debate and ultimately, I will side my final judgements to the team providing the greatest impact in the debate.

Participants should be ready to justify either with facts or logic as to why they are winning the argument and having the upper stand in the debate.

Offense should be reflected in the first speaker's speech in order to show that they have a foot hold in the debate. These individuals are crucial in the debate as they are the first to set a tone in the debate and present their argument and why they should get the vote.

Defense is a must in the rebuttals and participants should spend more time addressing factual arguments backed by evidence rather than wasting time without showing their evidence.

I am not in favor of a team that cannot argue without evidence when the opposing team asks for evidence check. I am interested in hearing a team that comes with facts, logic and brings their evidence to the table.

I have been engaged in public forum debate as a judge since 2016 and had been invited back to judge ever since.

In a debate, I believe comparison is a good way to show impacts to judges on top of the basics of logic, evidence, and connections.

I noticed some debaters tend to be fast talking in a debate. Personally I think is fine as long as words are clearly spoken. Speaking is about making yourself heard.

I also noticed some debaters tend to be aggressive in the debate. An appropriate degree but not too much of aggressiveness is helpful to win yourself more chances to present your case and ideas.

In terms of determining winner in a debate, I usually determine the winner by first comparing the impacts they present, and second looking at the logic and evidence as well as the connections of these to their case.

Last but not the least. Debate time is limited, therefore it’s best to focus on what’s important and deliver as much as you can and drop off those that are not so important i.g. arguing that opponents speak too much and didn’t let you speak.

                                                                    BLESSING PETER

My personal debate philosophy.

I believe reserving judgment and taking your time is an essential part of the debate, the ability to use simple logic to refute an opponent’s argument for me is the key  

 Speech Projection

I have no issues as long as the speech is clear, and does not put too much focus on the number of arguments which will lead to race against time instead focus on quality and emphasis because at the end of the day I can only judge on what I clearly hear no matter how good and confident I am in my flowing skills

My take on aggressiveness

I believe healthy competition comes from respecting each other, they are your opponent, not your enemies, remember, empty vessels make a lot of noise!

How do I usually determine the winner of the debate?  Briefly

As aforementioned on the use of logic to refute an opponent’s argument, rebuttal speech for me is one of the most important areas to excel in, gather your main arguments in the summary, you do that you win it

Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don’t second guess your argument, if you do let it be inside don’t show it

Respect between debaters is crucial for me. Keep your speeches free from offensive or discriminatory comments. Keep the round and after-round atmosphere civil and courteous.

I care about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I am going to sign my ballot for the team that puts out and pushes for the most with sound arguments.

Going too fast at the presentation of your primary arguments doesn’t help me or your opponents to understand how you are debating within the round. Sometimes it is better to slow down and arrange your refutations and turns smarter.

 Hypothetically, debate is a game, it is a game of minds. Explain warrants, impact your arguments, use comparative statements and weighing in last speeches, approach rebuttals with “Even if’s” to emphasize the strengths of your position. Do whatever you feel to advocate your side. Just keep in mind that even the game should be healthy. Ultimately, everyone in the round should enjoy the occasion regardless of the outcome.

I have been a debate judge for seven years now and I enjoy it big time. I love a genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences.

Quality, well-explained arguments should take precedence over quantity. Debaters should employ quoted evidence to back up their statements, and relevant evidence should be used to supplement rather than replace arguments. A crucial consideration is clear communication.

The quantity of arguments is less significant than the quality of arguments, just as evidence quantity is less important than evidence quality. As a result, your arguments should have three crucial components: claim, evidence, and warrant.

In addition, I seek a robust theoretical framework that gives justification for duty-based or consequential arguments. The framework discussion should focus on who gives the highest value and criteria rather than who achieves them the best (that should be left for the contention-level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is perfectly permissible if the debate can achieve it more effectively at the contention level.

I don't mind what you run as long as it's clear and sensible. Make no assumptions about my knowledge, since if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. I also consider how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately influence my selection, but it will certainly influence your speaker points.

Good luck and enjoy debating.

Debaters should chronologically outline their arguments and concreate evidence is a must for you to win the debate.

In addition, the debater must effectively defend their arguments as well as counter the assertions of the opposing team, failure to do so insinuates that they are correct and you agree.

Above all, everything should be done in a civil manner. 

PF

• In my view, the goal of debate is to educate debaters on both the topic area and the practice of debating.
• I come to the debate expecting the debaters to explain not just what their arguments are, but why they matter and, more importantly, why I should vote on them.
• Overall, I will evaluate a debate based on the analysis given in the Final Focus as to why a team should win the round. If that analysis is inconclusive or unpersuasive I will work backward across my flow until I can find an RFD.
• The role of the summary speaker is to summarize. Summary speakers who do 3 minutes of rebuttal will be penalized speaker points.
• I do not flow crossfire. The way I see it, CF is for the debaters to clarify the debate and bring new information to light. Nothing in CF will ever be a voting issue unless it is brought up later in a speech.
• I don't care about dropped arguments unless I'm told a reason why dropping that argument matters.
• Doing evidence check will result in a loss of speaker points. It is a waste of everyone's time. If you missed something, ask about it in crossfire.
• Doing evidence check and not actually analysing the evidence in the following speech will result in an even greater loss of speaker points.
• If the tournament allows, I will give oral feedback in addition to the feedback on the ballot.

Debate is a structured argument,and i believe that PF debates are mainly evidence based to construct argument.

Debaters should be able to support their arguments,weigh them well,don't be too aggressive,have team work and manage well their time.

About aggressiveness,i believe competitors should have respect and shouldn't be mean.

So,being mean or too aggressive will not be helpful to win more chances to present well your ideas.

About fast talking,i don't mind it as long as i am able to hear what you are saying.

Determining the winner,i will consider two things:The rebuttal and summary speeches.

Conduct

Civil in XF without excessive deference to one another, please.

Impacts

I like to see measurable benefits & harms. Long term considerations are good.

I don't like to see FF impacts suddenly inflated for hyperbolic effect. Keep it real please.

On disclosure

I am against disclosure. I accept and acknowledge that in round it can create better 'clash' however, I think it is toxic for the debate community as a whole. Frequently debaters exchange cards, and the debate system degenerates into a 'this card beats that one' where debaters are presenting rote learned arguments rather than engaging with the actual content of the topic at depth.

Call it a shibboleth of mine, but I do believe that a debate is a clash of ideas - and that this requires debaters to engage with the concepts in round, rather than rely on suggested responses generated by a team outwith. Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.

In any tournament where the rules do not actively require disclosure please take account of the above.

On evidence

Be willing to call for card checks on your opponents. Happy to see debaters offer fair and reasonable scrutiny of your opponents' research. It's part of the game and it is debater's duty to police proper use and application of research.

If the round hinges on a piece of evidence, I may ask to see the card. This is because our activity is based on empirical evidence and to ensure fairness and adherence principles of integrity.

On the nature of public forum

By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading eliminate its utility as a tool for learning how to communicate effectively to the public. The quality of analysis which has gone into a case read at speed simply to 'outrun' your opponent by their not having sufficient time to respond to your contentions is not something I usually find compelling.

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.

1. My Debate Background:

Debated in University: 2010-2012, British Parliamentary Style

Coached university students and judged for debate competitions : 2012-2015, British Parliamentary Style

Coached secondary school students and judged for debate competitions: 2016- 2021, Public Forum Debate

2. How do I judge?

I judge on Argumentation, but also value engagement and teamwork to good extend.

3. Some specifics

• I value use of Evidence
• I value active engagement and logical refutations
• Speed: I can accept debaters speaking fast but please don't read your script without any emotions
• Manner: If you are an aggressive type of debater, please note I do need to hear the other side out (and thus excessive disruption won't be favored) 
•  
• Counter plans: depending on the topics, I think counter plans are overall acceptable, but I don't credit nor support a soft stance.