you can ask for my paradigm before a round begins

I have over 5 years of experience in Public Forum debate. I have judged over 7 tournaments and multiple mock debates in the past. All in all, I am a flow judge, I am ok with relatively fast speaking speed. Here’re some suggestions for you:

1. DON’T bring up new points in final focus...I WON’T give you any credit for that as it will not appear on my flow sheet.
2. Weigh your impacts!
3. If your opp. Drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you should call it out.
4. Extend your arguments through out the whole debate to ensure full credit from me.
5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might call for the card. (DON’T fake your cards)
6. I am fine with speed once again, but please make sure your clarity is the priority, I will STOP flowing as soon as you start spreading.
7. Simply don’t interrupt your opponents during cross...give them a chance to finish their question before you insert another follow-up or response
8. I won’t necessarily flow crossfire so if you think anything occurred that’s important during the cross, you need to state it in your next immediate speech.
9. If you want my vote, the links should be clear.

At the end of each round, I will provide a short round analysis and personal feedbacks if any debaters want any. Do understand that I make my decisions on a very serious basis, so please bare with me if I need few minutes to make my decisions up.

As a judge I try to promote the same values I do as a debater. That means rounds should be evaluated based on logic and impact - groups need to prove with reason and evidence together that their side has greater voting value in the round.

Hi I’m Weiqing (Linda) Xiang from an international high school located in Nanjing, China.

I have 5 years of PF debate experience. I do both domestic (in China) debates and international debates.

I prefer tech over truth, but I won’t be buying any far-fetched connections of contentions to impacts that lack a coherent narrative in the real world.

Collapsing is ok for me. I would recommend you to frontline in the second rebuttal.

I don’t mind spreading but make sure that you articulate.

To win a debate, you need to provide me with more important impacts than those from your opponents, clear and well-interpreted mechanisms, and a deep understanding of the issues.

Good luck on your debates *v*

Case Construction: I value well-structured cases that present clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Arguments should be signposted clearly, making it easy to follow along. I appreciate when debaters articulate the significance of their arguments and how they interact with their opponent's case.

Evidence and Empiricism: Quality evidence is paramount. I expect debaters to present statistical support and explain its relevance and impact on the debate. Misrepresenting evidence or failing to provide sources upon request will negatively affect my assessment of your credibility.

Clash and Engagement: A good debate is characterised by direct engagement with the opponent's arguments. I look for teams that can effectively refute and dismantle their opponent's case through logical reasoning and evidence rather than simply restating their case. Rebuttals should be specific and address the core of the opposing argument.

Delivery: Clear and concise delivery enhances persuasiveness. Speed is acceptable as long as it does not sacrifice clarity. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their arguments, making it easy for the judge and the audience to follow.

Crossfire: I view crossfire as an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extend arguments. I appreciate debaters who ask pointed questions and provide direct answers. Civility and respect during crossfire are non-negotiable.

Final Focus: The final focus should crystallize why your team wins the round, tying back to the framework or weighing mechanism established earlier. Be clear and concise, prioritizing your strongest arguments and why they outweigh your opponent's.

Decision Rationale: My decision will be based on the flow, considering which team has effectively established their case, utilized evidence more persuasively, and engaged more effectively in refutation and rebuttal. I value strategic argumentation that demonstrates understanding the round's key issues and how they interact.

Feedback: I believe in constructive feedback that helps debaters grow. I aim to provide specific and actionable comments that focus on both strengths and areas for improvement.

Conclusion: As a judge, I aim to foster an environment where debaters feel challenged and supported in their growth. I look forward to rounds that showcase the debaters’ ability to argue and their passion for the topics they are discussing.

Tom Xu, UWC Changshu China '26

I would judge based on the number of clash points won by both sides and the extent of persuasiveness within those arguments. Therefore a few fundamental elements that debaters can do, such as presenting constructive speech with quantitative sources, weighing over points within a clash on different scales, and explaining why some arguments would deserve a victory.

I would not insert any personal beliefs or opinions when making final decisions. However, I will decide the priority of different clashes based on the amount of time discussing, explanations on the uniqueness and reversibility of arguments, etc.