I am attentive listener. I enjoy debates. I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for eye contact. I donot like debate that put their head down and reading all the time. I am fine with the speech speed as long as it's clear and understandable. But if I cannot actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weightage.  Present you arguments with support of good logical flow or updated evidence. I also rate  Crossfire high so do ask well framed questions and answers your opponents questions clearly. Be civilized and let all enjoy the debate.

In OO, I like a speech to have a balance of academic writing and personal narrative. I prefer novel topics with a clear connection to the speaker.

In EXT, I like to see a speech that is well-researched and clearly answers the question. Evidence is important, but so is logic.

In IMP, I like to see a speech that clearly interprets the quotation and attempts to explore the topic in a persuasive way.

Hello Folk,

I am excited to be part of the team and judge the BASIS students. I have done this for a year and before in the USA. Good luck and have fun.

"I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence."

I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.

For IMPROMPTU speaking I will be looking for - 

Is the speech organised? 

Did the speaker clearly and effectively discuss , analyze and evaluate the selected topic?

Was the speaker poised, sincere and comfortable with the delievery?

Did the speaker use effective oral presentation skills? - Volume, diction, pace amd pause?

Did the speaker use effective body language, gestures, facial expression, eye contact?

Did the speaker exemplify the highest standards of language useage and a wide variety of vocabualry? 

Did the speaker avoid poor grammar and mispronunciations?

 

For Oratory I will be looking for

Vocal delievery -

Clairity of speech - Words clearly articulated and understaood

Diction and pronunication - degree of which the words were properly pronounced

Consistent Volume control

Fluidity of speech 

Emotional delievery - 

Pathos - degree of passion of the speech

Emotion - emotional expression and variation of emotional expression 

Element of persuasion - have conviction in the speech

Engagment of audience - maintain audience interest

Physical delievery - 

Gestures, pose and posture - appropraite use of body language, facial expression

Mobility - appropriate use of space

Tempo - Appropraite rhythm maintained

 

A well conducted debate is like poetry in motion as the participants engage in verbal jousting to unseat each other. The most important thing for for me when judging is the camaraderie exhibited amongst competitors. Winning is important, however, not at all costs. Therefore, I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answers, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves. bring I am fascinated by speech and debate, have run debating clubs in the past and generally enjoy a well-reasoned argument with solid supporting evidence.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned spirt of camaraderie, whereas it might be difficult to accept that a result has gone against you, I appreciate a team or individual that respects my decision rather than seeking to educate me on the nuanced complexities of debating and judging. it is also important that debaters seek to focus on the practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner rather than seeking to dazzle or bamboozle with a plethora of facts and stats, obscure theories or arguments of definitions.

Finally, while it is ok to very evidence, this should be a rarely used tool. I believe that all participants have invested a lot of time in preparation for each event, it is therefore important that we accord each other the courtesy of not evidence checking every piece of evidence presented. As a judge, I will not dismiss an entire case due to a mistaken, misquoted or misplaced piece of evidence. Should you have a strong conviction that a piece of evidence quoted by your opponent is awry then merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote or may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet.

I come to the debate with a clear slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will effect society.

For different types of speech and debate, I value clear structure, pacing and natural communication.

I began judging speech and debate in 2022, so technically I am quite a novice. However, as an ELA teacher of eleven years I have experience with keenly identifying thesis statements, arguments, powerful evidence, concise elaboration, and of course, rhetoric.

I will endeavor to judge every round from a blank slate, which means you should not attempt to classify my judging as "tech" or "truth." In general, I view debate as a truth-seeking exercise; the responsibility of each debater is to convince me that their side of the flow will result in a better world or society. That means that while I will keep a thorough flow of the debate, one or two or even many dropped arguments by one debater may not matter if that debater convinces me of the wisdom of their own side of the flow. Every debate collapses to one or two central ideas, and the debater who uses sound logic and thorough warranting to convince me that they have won those central ideas will earn my ballot.

Speaking: Although I prefer a more conversational style, I am open to the speed that some circuits require. However, I still view debate as an oral communication activity. I think every debater should go out of their way to make every round accessible, not only to the people in the room but also to those who might judge our entire activity by what the round looks and sounds like. If you choose to ignore this advice, so be it, but know that your choice may cost you speaker points.

Respect: You have a responsibility to make every person in the room feel safe and respected. That means you should consider both your opponent and your judges in deciding how to approach a round. If your opponent is a ninth-grade novice and you are a senior two-time top qualifier, don't exclude them from the round by debating in a way that is not accessible to them. If your opponent or judge asks you not to spread or to run tricks, please respect their wishes. Good debaters can adjust their styles to their opponent and judges. Any argument or behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or diminishes any person's humanity because of their identity will earn you a loss.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Tag and card is fine, website link or hard copy all ok

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

I respect time management so l accept fast talking as long as the speaker is audible.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

It’s not necessary for a win …. Everything should be done in moderation showing respect for every debater.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
l consider all the facts given then compare the facts to the evidence provided .

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Debates should flow smoothly with the highest level of professionalism

This is my second time judging speech and debate. I am so excited to listen to your speeches. I am looking for solid reasoning and empirical evidence and preparation.

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

Background: As a PF debate judge, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, clarity, and effective communication. I value depth of analysis and strategic use of evidence. I encourage debaters to engage in clash, respond to opponents' arguments, and communicate with a broad audience.

Expectations:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Support your arguments with relevant evidence, but don't forget to analyze and explain the implications. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence.

3. Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.

4. Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

5. Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.

6. Flexibility: Adapt to the flow of the round. Flexibility in strategy and argumentation is appreciated.

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an OO judge, I am looking for compelling storytelling, effective use of rhetoric, and a speaker who can captivate the audience. I appreciate creativity, passion, and a clear message.

Expectations:

1. Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.

2. Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.

3. Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.

4. Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.

5. Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.

6. Timing: Respect the time limits. Practice to ensure that your speech fits within the allocated time.

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an Impromptu judge, I value adaptability, quick thinking, and effective communication. I understand the constraints of the format and appreciate speakers who can navigate them successfully.

Expectations:

1. Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.

2. Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.

3. Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.

4. Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.

5. Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.

6. Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.

I'm a "logos" judge, meaning that I'm looking for clear contentions that are backed by evidence aligned with the contentions. I'm looking for a progression of thought through the arguments presented.

I take off speaker points for speakers who shout, deride, roll their eyes, or interrupt opponents.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hypertechnical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters. There is a reason why Public Forum exists outside of Policy Debate and is why Public Forum has a larger tent and is more open to outsiders without extensive debate experience. A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner. 

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves. 

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.

I value clear organization of your argumentation, communication, and convincing rhetoric.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hyper-technical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters.

A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner.

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments, and I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument. "Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "noncircumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find.

Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.