BIBSC Park Lane Harbor International
2023 — Huizhou, Guangdong, China, CN
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePlease speak clearly, let me understand what you are saying. Good luck with your efforts!
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.
I am a new teacher/judge working my second in person tournament. I look forward to seeing you performing your speeches and debating.
For Public Forom Debate - there are a couple of things I ask:
Please be certain when stating your contentions that you clearly enunciate and speak at a normal pace so I can properly hear and record your contentions.
I like a civil crossfire, please use this time to properly address evidence and issues rather than shouting over each other.
Let's have a great tournament.
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.
Firstly, and most important - no spreading (speed reading).
I prefer to hear arguments based on logic; statistics are useful but please do not try to drown me in numbers.
I do want rational arguments, I will not be swayed by sentimentally.
Don't be aggressive with your opponents, be polite and civil.
I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.
Enjoy yourself, stay confident no matter what happens. Arouse me at the start and end with a strong conclusion related to your topic. Be concise, structured and indulge me with interesting facts! All the best to you!
No spreading. Speak clearly.
If you talk fast, I will not follow. Be aware, if I can't follow, I can't judge highly. I have judged several times before on an official forum such as this. However, as part of my AP Psychology teachings, I often set debates on contentious issues in psychology as assignments. They are a great way of getting students to see both sides of an argument in a PF setting.
What I look for mostly, is evidence to back up a position. Without evidence, it is merely an opinion. I don't want to hear your opinion, I want to hear how you develop your arguments using reason and logic, backed up with evidence. I am a scientist. I always look for the scientific method to be applied here.
I don't take a side. I am not swayed by an argument. I am won over by evidence, well researched and well used to present your argument. The very same can be said of your rebuttal. A great argument will be always be backed up by a sound knowledge, understanding and appreciation of alternative views, along with anticipation of the evidence that is likely to be presented against your case.
The winner will be the debater who uses their evidence to the best effect.
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
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.When it comes to debate, I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. I do not like speed-talking (spreading). Please do not do that.
A good debater is someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while they have spoken and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.
Good luck to all of you! Win or lose, participating in speech and debate teaches you skills that will benefit you greatly!
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.
In debate, I have just a few expectations:
- Is the argument in the constructive and rebuttal speeches clearly understood? Both speed and content. I don’t simply want evidence for evidence’s sake. I want to hear concise, logical arguments. Speed reading is not impressive and will only make it harder for me and your opponent to understand.
- I do not want students interrupting or talking over each other. Etiquette is important.
A good debater is one who speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible. I do not like spreading. It is unlikely you will win the debate if you are using this tactic.
For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.
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.
Judge Portfolio:
World Impromptu Public Speaking Champion
TED & TEDx Coach | 2x TEDx Speaker
First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies
Specialising in Virtual, Hybrid, AR, VR & Holographic Presentations
Judged over 1000+ Speech Contests (International & Local - E.g. NSDA, USAD, HOSA, WSDA 21st Century, Star of Outlook TM, Startups etc)
17 years Public Speaking Experience
*Unique X-Factor: Trained with people with disabilities, refugees and rehabiliated prisoners, while judging related contests*
Students’ Achievements - Trained and Coached over 50000 students including CEOs and GM roles
Students winning World Champion in Public Speaking (Virtual), Startups, Debates etc.
Getting on the Guinness World Record, TED and TEDx Stage.
For Public Speaking related - I am here to know you, your ideas and your potential to help you grow to be a better speaker. I am also here to learn with you. (Open) I am open to any style and if you can be “yourself”, that’s a bonus!
For Debate: I look with a simple assessment: PREP - Point, Reason, Examples, Presentation Style and format.
After the first initial round of assessment: I will start looking critically at every point, tracing the credibility, relatability as well as your crossfire performance.
What stands out? What do I learn? What am I amazed by? What insights may have been overlooked? These are the questions that I will ask myself.
The tick-off: We respect you for your time, I hope that you respect us for our time. If you didn’t prepare, we will know!
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.
I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
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.
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.
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.
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!
I am not new to judging speech and debate, but I am new to this format. I will value well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. While pathos is also crucial in the art of persuasion, I will not enjoy any hints of derision or sarcasm directed at opposing teams during debate rebuttal.
For interpretive events, I will value originality and passion, while clear delivery is also important.
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'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.
Hi debaters,
As I noticed majorly I will be judging Impromptu and PuFo, so my Paradigm is basically for them.
I'm a Middle School Dean, and I prefer discipline in the room. Please be respectful while you are speaking/preparing for your speech.
You do not need to change your style of speaking for me (speed, accent, rhythm…), if I missed anything, I would reach out and ask for it. But as English is not my first language, I do prefer debaters that speak with high clarity and mid-level speed.
Don’t use too much technical stuff, if you do, explain it in short. Otherwise, the argument will be lost on me.
Be nice to your opponents. There’s a difference between being aggressive in crossfire and being mean, don’t be mean. Please let your opponent complete their thought in crossfire before interrupting.
I value heavily when debaters telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things.
Wish you all have a great experience in BBSZ!
I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. A good debater is also someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.
This is my first time judging speech or debate, but I do know what I value in an argument. Arguments must be clearly communicated in a way for other students and judges to understand. I also value quality and depth rather than a long list of shallower arguments. Arguments shall be judged without bias and purely on their strength, clarity, and quality.
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.