Please focus on logic and use your best quality evidence. Speed speaking is not acceptable. Debates are not won on the basis of intimidation. I expect politeness towards everyone in the room.

Good Luck

In judging each round, I look for arguments that are both educational and informative. Debaters should rebut opponents’ contentions and justify why their arguments should be taken. I will sign my ballot based on the weighted impacts.

Debaters may have prepared a speech, but make sure it can be clearly heard. It is essential for the judges and opponents to hear and comprehend what you are saying.

Persuade me on why you should ultimately win a debate. This can be accomplished by making a logical case, fortifying it with relevant evidence and rebutting your opponents’ arguments. Please make sure that your evidence is linked to your points rather than just presenting information. My interpretation may differ from yours.

I pay attention to the performance of both parties during cross-fires (relevant questions and responses provided) because one side can cause the other to admit some of their claims.

Lastly, the summary and final focus enable debaters to properly evaluate and weigh of impacts. This should be well crafted.  

Hello Folk,

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

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

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

I used to be the head coach of my high school's debating program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks. Judge Philosophies 1.Judge’s Name: Queen Chibanda 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

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

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

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

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

I love respectful debates.

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

Arguments should be well developed and coherent.

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

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

Refute arguments politely, giving each other time to speak.

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

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

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 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.

1. Judge's Name- Vincent Gaviyao

2. Tell us about your debating experience

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience

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

4. What I'd your speed preference?

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

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

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

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

What do you write down in your notes?

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

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

portant facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ü I like policy and critical debate;

ü Please no progressive arguments or spreading.

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

ü Fairness can be an impact;

ü Explicit clash over implicit clash;

ü Analysis over evidence;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

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

As a judge 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.

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

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.

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

Name: Nisbert Mutema

 

Age: 23

 

College:  Anhui University of technology

 

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

 

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

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

·       I was a judge in the NSDA debate tournaments

·       I also participated in the SPSDC debate tournaments

·       Participated in the NHDLC tournaments

 

2.     Sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

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

 

3.     How do you consider fast-talking?

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

As a judge, my theoretical framework focuses on clarity, fluidity, and audience engagement. I value well-presented arguments with substantial evidence that is accessible to everyone. I appreciate eloquence and encourage debaters to respect the decorum of the competition. Debaters should always be mindful of time management, ensuring an outstanding delivery of constructive and rebuttal arguments. During crossfire, the focus should be more on what opponents presented, rather than anything else. Above all, I aim to reward teams with good organization and presentation.

                                                                    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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

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

Expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

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

Expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model –

1. Whatever basis for the decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
2. Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules
3. Debate Decisions are made based on:
4. when debators lay good frameworks and contentions and are able to provide a strong link.
5. strong rebuttal argumental arguments backed with facts, pieces of evidence, and logical reasoning and how quickly debators think on their feet in crossfires and finally,
6. A very good summary of speeches from both teams.

For a speech pool debate: decisions are made firstly by;

1. Delivery style- whether the speaker shows a new delivery style, made eye contact and uses body language and a tone level whether high or low used.
2. Content- the organization of the content from introduction to conclusion, availability of new examples and rhetoric of the speech backed with some shreds of evidence
3. time awareness

In conclusion, a speaker whether public speaking or debating should be very confident and use a good delivery style backed with examples and supports claims with logic or pieces of evidence

Judge philosophies

1. judge’s name: Moirah Sithole

1. 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 have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

• TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

• I regularly read news about this topic. It's an interest of mine

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

• Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn't respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

1. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

• It's somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

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

The following are the factors that goes into to my decision as to who wins the debate:

1. Content and Argumentation: l assess the strength of each team's arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented during the debate. This includes the clarity of the arguments, the relevance of the evidence cited, and the logic of the reasoning.

2. Clash and Rebuttal: l then evaluate how well each team engages with and responds to the arguments made by the opposing team. Effective rebuttals that address the key points raised by the other side and highlight weaknesses in their arguments are important.

3. Organization and Structure: l also look at how well each team organizes their case, presents their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, and provides a clear roadmap for the debate.

4. Delivery and Presentation: l consider the speaking skills of the debaters, including their clarity, confidence, and ability to effectively communicate their arguments to the audience.

5. Crossfire Performance: l sometimes also take into account how well debaters perform during the crossfire, where they engage in direct questioning and answering with the opposing team.

6. Impact and Weighing: l further assess the overall impact of each team's arguments and weigh the significance of the impacts presented. Debaters are expected to explain why their arguments are more important or have a greater impact than those of the opposing team.

7. Use of Evidence: l also evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented by each team to support their arguments. Debaters who use credible and well-supported evidence are often viewed more favorably.

8. Clarity of Final Focus: The final focus speeches are crucial in summarizing the key arguments and impacts of the debate. I pay attention to how well debaters crystallize their arguments and make a compelling case for why they should win.

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

Debaters need to relax and enjoy 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.

I prefer arguments that are based on analysis of evidence that connects back to their claim -> rather than simply debates devolving into evidence fights analyze how the evidence you present supports your claim/disproves the opposing sides.

Think about impacts on stakeholders, use of case studies, and context.

Contentions that can demonstrate a nuanced level of reasoning, crossfire where you can expose vulnerabilities in the opposition's arguments, and rebuttals that can turn their points will be what decides the debate.