BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual
2023 — Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, CN
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI care most about the speech being factual and uniquely informative. Consequently, my support goes to the individual/team that fully comprehends the subject at hand by including their own researched evidence and analysis instead of merely reciting.
Be comfortable in presenting your facts and beliefs as I have an open mind to the two sides of a coin, but in doing so present with conviction that stems from confidence in the accuracy and impact you believe your points will have.
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."
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.
I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.
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.
The adjudication of any debate will consider a number of issues but my verdict will be determined by the terms or rules of that specific debate. Competitors will have to demonstrate their understanding of the topic in an analytical way and also by referencing authentic sources or statistics rather than using emotional points to seek validation of this judge. Everything will be based on who has done justice to the topic in key areas rather than who has sided with my position. I will approach every competition without choosing a side of the topic I support or will not be influenced by my cultural values to determine outcomes.
To me, the speech/debate experience should be educational for all.
I value sound arguments and logical reasoning over appeals to emotion, and arguments that are more accessible to the general public rather than ones that are loaded with jargons, for example.
It is also important to me that you conduct yourself in a respectful manner while engaging with others during the competition.
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!
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.
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.
As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.
Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.
I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.
Previous tournaments judged
- Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
- Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
- NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
- WSDA Guangzhou 2022
- BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
- BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
- WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
- WSD online (October 2023)
- WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
- Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
- BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
- General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
- TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
- BASIS International Nanjing 2024
- TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
- TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
- NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
- TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
- BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024
Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]
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.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]
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.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]
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.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]
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)
It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]
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)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.
Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate
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 in debate and speech competitions, my primary goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to participants while evaluating their performance.
I prefer that fewer arguments surpass many weak ones in terms of persuasiveness and should be addressed each at a time.
A framework is an essential roadmap for how the speaker will approach the debate. Without a framework, I might get lost in the details of the debate and lose sight of the big picture, so I consider a framework as an essentialpart of the debate.
Rebuttals should elaborate on each point made by the debaters in their persuasive speeches.
If you want to give evidence mention it from citation details like the author, year, or source.
I expect participants to articulate their ideas in a clear and concise manner, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims.
Oral prompting is acceptable in crossfire and all 4 debaters should participate in Grand Cross.
The debaters are expected to keep the discussion on the resolution's major aspects.
I have no opinion based on critical arguments. Just debate the resolution.
Each debater has an equal ability to prove the validity of his or her side of the resolution as a general principle during arguments.
Be courteous and not bully.
I will also evaluate how well speakers engage with their audience through eye contact, vocal projection, and body language.
Speak clearly using good oral communication skills.
Communicate with your opponents.
During the debate, I will evaluate each speaker based on their individual performance rather than comparing them to other participants.
My verdict in adjudication is within the rules and parameters of the specific Speech or Debate. Participants must be able to illuminate their arguments and provide concrete evidence and convincing claim not only to the audience but even to the opponents to win. Claims must be clear-cut to promote understanding of the arguments brought up. Every argument employed in the session counts, it should be your best shot and also reflect you are well informed about the topic, supporting evidence and its authenticity. Employing reasonable gestures or body language will benefit you in illustrations and draw the attention of your audience. Back your claims satisfactorily and build counterarguments against your opponents. Debaters must refrain from attacking the opponents but rather justify and convince them through reasonably and rationally supported claims. Effective use of allocated time is evidence of familiarity with the topic of interest, confidence, and preparedness for both Speech and Debate. Remember competition is meant to improve you. All the best, enjoy!
The debating rounds are more interesting for me if there are more facts with exhibits and less emotions. Thus the team I will sign my ballot for is the one able to meet the above requirement as well as a top notch weighed impact.
I expect all points and facts to be given in order of importance and or start with the one the the greatest impact. Each point should a supportive explanation. All the above should be in relation to the highlighted motion.
The first speaking team is the Affirmative team. This team supports the motion and would give definitions of key terms. The debate has to be extended in FF until this team is front-lined.
The second team is the Non-affirmative which is the team in rebuttal of the highlighted motion. They also need to explain the key terms and then give their facts and points in chronological order of importance.
I prefer reading the given exhibits as this helps me understand the points being expressed better. I am mainly attracted by confidence and a show of through research on the topic.
Remember that each point is correct until proven otherwise which is the main purpose of a debate. Take your time, be steady and be truthful.
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
Hello speakers,
I am Dr. Lanz and certified by NFHS in adjudicating and coaching speech and debate.
EXTEMP: I consider how well the speaker responds to the question, the quality and quantity of evidence you present, and the overall effectiveness of your speaking. I focus on logical analysis, clarity, effective introduction and conclusion, use of support material, use of language, and effective delivery.
IMP: I focus on the creativity of the speaker’s response, the organization and logic of your presentation, and the skillfulness of your overall communication.
OO: I focus on the quality of the speaker’s argument, including your logical connections and your use of evidence. I also look at the effectiveness of the speech’s organization and the flow of the speech. Your overall presentation, including speaking skills, creativity, and audience engagement is important.
Interp: I consider the skillfulness of the speaker’s performance, the creativity of the interpretation, and the overall coherence of the selection.
PF: I enjoy passionate arguments during crossfire. I also enjoy engaging presentations, meaning delivering your speech to the opposing team and the audience instead of just reading off of a script. I appreciate clear communication. Do not speed up.
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 !!!
I want to be able to follow the flow effortlessly and appreciate persuasive speakers,the perfect round consists of pleasant, polite competition.I am concerned with judging the facts, the justification, and the presentation as a debate judge. Each side has the burden of proof, and it is up to them to persuade me that their case is well-supported. The argument put forward by the adversary must be refuted in order for the negative side to persuade me. As a result, I pay attention for logical, convincing arguments that are presented in an orderly manner. I place a lot of focus on the speaker's delivery and how effectively he or she presents his or her argument. The round's safety and instructional value are most important to me. The team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact will ultimately receive my vote, on which I will mark my ballot.
The first speaking team's defense remains in place until it enters the frontline; but, in FF, it must be expanded. The only thing that matters to me is that the defense continues after the second rebuttal has been made. The burden of proof is on the side that must persuade me that itscase is well-supported. The negative side must persuade the judge bydisproving the opposing viewpoint. I look for logical, convincingreasoning that is presented in a clear, orderly manner using this as myfoundation. I place a lot of stress on the debater's delivery, the way heor she presents his argument, and the level of support.For me to evaluate offense, it must be mentioned in both the summary and the FF. More than merely a card tag or author name, offense warrants action.
I'm fairly tab, so feel free to read whatever you like, but be ready to defend your position and finally explain why it matters in the overall scheme of the round.
As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.
Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.
I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.
Previous tournaments judged
2023 I served as a judge for
January -BIBSC Shenzhen bilingual ,
February-3 WSD tournaments
April-May -3 NHDLC tournaments
October-DLC PS
November-BASIS Guangzhou
evaluating and providing feedback on debaters' performances.
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
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.
My judging paradigm is rooted in an impartial and meticulous evaluation process, adhering strictly to the predefined terms and rules of each debate. I prioritize clarity over speed, recognizing the significance of a contestant's ability to articulate a persuasive argument within the allocated time frame. Emphasizing a preference for well-structured presentations, I value a seamless flow of ideas, directness, and attention to detail. The ideal performance, in my view, captivates the audience through a compelling and convincing presentation, ensuring a winning edge for the debater who successfully combines precision with persuasion.
Judge Philosophies\
Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE
2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.
I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.
I h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?
a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?
a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
a.
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
c
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. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
b
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.
Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.
1). In my opinion the goal of a framework is to to frame your case such that your impacts are relevant, and your opponents do not. It can be used to weigh the value of impacts in the beginning of the round, and to set a burden of proof on the other team.
2). In a debate I focus on the arguments, evidence, the impact of the arguments as compared to that of the opponent, I also focus on the solvents.
For a speech i focus on whether the student has understood the topic and how important it is, how people can relate to it and also the originality within the speech it self, these are some of the criterias I use to judge a speech.
3). A good ballot to me comprise of a minimum of three contentions like for example, the weight of the impact in the topics discussed, evidence with good factual data on the topic, intriguing crossfires, the summary that stays within the boundaries of the topic not new arguments. These as well are the criterias I mainly focus on when judging a debate
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
What is your debate background?
I have judged off and on for the last seven years during many NSDA speech and debate tournaments. During my 9 years of teaching in China I have been delighted to judge in around 40 tournaments (online and in person) and see so many talented students.
How do you judge?
I look for sound logic, good research practices and solid arguments. I go with my gut. I listen for style, delivery and overall flow. I look for debaters who deliver the whole package. I look for the debaters or teams who have "done their homework" and know what they are doing. The end result of the overall presentation is what matters to me.
Please explain other specifics about your judging style:
I am not impressed by speed...especially if the speaker begins to trip over their words and lose their focus, flow and grip over their listener. Just be yourself. Don't be what you think we want. Be yourself...everyone else is already taken!
Debate background:
I debated in high school and competed for about 2 years.
I am a debate judge now and I have extensive judging experience spanning 8 years.
Judging style:
I am a flow judge and base it on arguments. The use of evidence to support arguments is highly encouraged.
I will deliberate on the overall presentation of the debaters anchored on strong arguments and delivery. I will give a lot of weight to impacts and award points based on that.
additionally, I will award points based on articulation and conduct during the debate. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. you will be marked down to the lowest points.
I demand civility during the debate, particularly during cross. Please allow your opponent to complete their thought before interrupting. Nevertheless, I enjoy a passionate argument during crossfire.
I can follow fast speech therefore you do not need to change your speaking style.
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.
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:
-
Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.
-
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.
-
Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.
-
Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.
-
Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.
-
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:
-
Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.
-
Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.
-
Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.
-
Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.
-
Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.
-
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:
-
Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.
-
Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.
-
Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.
-
Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.
-
Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.
-
Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.
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.
I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.
I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.
I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.
I will disclose results based on Tournament policy
I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.
Judge Philosophies1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]
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.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]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.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]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.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]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)
In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]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)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate
I find enjoyment in well-prepared and confident presentations.
Be reminded to provide sufficient and relevant evidence to help back up your argument. Refute arguments politely, without belittling another opponent no matter their style, ethnicity, race or appearance.
Give one another time to speak without interruption. Please keep track of time. I'm positive you will do your best! Good luck.
I am a legal practitioner and I have 4 years experience in judging Debates and public speaking both online and offline.My law career makes me pretty skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value the time and energy you have invested in debate, and endeavor to be a thoughtful, attentive judge. I appreciate reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.
I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters. I then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner.
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.
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.