I 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.

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.

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.

I believe that public forum debate is all about evidence gathering and impact weighing. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and weigh it well, you can win the round.

I believe that a speech is all about the relevance of the chosen topic, the relatability of the topic to the audience, and originality that is there are any truly original topics. These three key areas are important when presenting a speech and if done well will help you earn higher points.

I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps in maximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone. 

Aggressiveness doesn't win you the round, let's be polite to one another and stick to the important 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. 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

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

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.

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

Approach: As a judge, I prioritize evaluating arguments based on their logical strength, evidence, and persuasive impact. I carefully listen to each speaker, assessing their content, delivery, and organization.

Adjudication Criteria: I assess arguments based on their clarity, coherence, and relevance to the topic. I value well-researched positions supported by credible evidence. Effective delivery, including vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact, also influences my evaluation.

Feedback: I provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. I focus on providing specific suggestions to help speakers enhance their argumentation, delivery, and overall performance.

Adaptability: I adapt my judging style to different events and formats, recognizing the unique requirements and expectations of each category.

Impartiality: I approach each round with an unbiased mindset, ensuring a fair assessment of all participants regardless of their background or affiliation

Hello guys ,l hope you’re all good In my assessing student debates, my holistic judging paradigm centers on the transformative potential of debate as an educational tool, emphasizing clarity, organization, and substantive content. I prioritize clear and well-organized communication, encouraging debaters to present structured arguments supported by credible evidence. Critical thinking is paramount, rewarding nuanced understanding, and the ability to synthesize information. I value effective cross-examinations that clarify positions and expose weaknesses. Delivery matters; I appreciate clear, paced, and varied vocal styles, as well as persuasive non-verbal communication. Strategic thinking is recognized and rewarded, with points for adaptability and efficient time management. Ethical conduct is non-negotiable, with deductions for personal attacks or offensive language. Lastly, flexibility, receptiveness to feedback, and a passion for improvement are key factors in my assessment, aiming to create a positive learning environment that values growth and engagement in the art of 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

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.

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!

There are many factors that I take into account when judging a speech. The first part is the choice of the topic, is it relatable to everyone, did you try to explain how it affects you and everyone listening to you? The student has to be able to properly explain his or her topic. It is also good if the student can try to bring it out funnily or interestingly. The student must be time conscious, knowing that after they finish the grace period time they will be punished.  Gestures are of great importance, the speaker should be able to express his or her points not only with words but also with body language. The students must make sure that the words that they use are appropriate for the audience, with no vulgar language.  The language must be precise and promote a clear understanding of thoughts. 

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'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.

As a judge in speech tournament, my role is to evaluate speakers' communication skills. I will assess speeches based on:

1. Content (clarity, relevance, arguments)
2. Delivery (voice, pronunciation, body language)
3. Organization (structure, transitions)
4. Audience engagement

It is crucial for me as a judge to be impartial, offer constructive feedback, and ensure speakers adhere to time limits. I want to help speakers grow.

Seasoned judge and competitive speaker, I appreciate a well structured debate, highly logical and robust points. I look for the depth in contentions and also the ability of a speaker to bring their points to light and convincingly highlight why they should win. I am extremely attentive to the information content and am highly receptive to out of the box thinkers, authenticity, showmanship and composure when debating.

I appreciate a good, logical narrative.

I will accept certain costs or impacts prioritised above a simple general weighing of net costs provided that there is a logical justification for this; particular stakeholder groups being deemed to be more important / not part of the weighing criteria.

Impacts relating to poverty, environmental protection and education are of interest to me.

Arguments should be pragmatic, not idealistic.

I am not a fan of spreading when it takes away from analysis of whatever issue is being raced through.

Please listen to your opponents. If your opponent gives a statistic on X; and later you claim 'they said nothing on X' - I will notice. Engage with the arguments!

I value communication and evidence that shows debaters understand the topic in all angles, also the debaters should be able to successfully defend their resolution best without vague dismissal of the opponents’ questions.

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.