Hi I'm James, I'm a former pf debater and I'm looking forward to your presentations.

Throughout the round of the debate, I expect all competitors to stay respectful to your opponents and judge.

Evaluations: I weigh speeches over crossfires, so make sure to carry your arguments or evidence into your later speeches if you want to extend upon them. Arguments with a clear point, strong evidence, and a stable logic is what I will be looking for, weigh your arguments for me to see a direct comparison. Put more focus on to the more essential arguments towards the end of the debate will help me decide upon voting issues. Establish your frameworks clearly or else I would be deciding upon my own values.

Speaking clearly and slowly with emphasis will help with my flowing.

Good luck and have fun

Hi I'm James, I'm a former pf debater and I'm looking forward to your presentations.

Throughout the round of the debate, I expect all competitors to stay respectful to your opponents and judge.

Evaluations: I weigh speeches over crossfires, so make sure to carry your arguments or evidence into your later speeches if you want to extend upon them. Arguments with a clear point, strong evidence, and a stable logic is what I will be looking for, weigh your arguments for me to see a direct comparison. Put more focus on to the more essential arguments towards the end of the debate will help me decide upon voting issues. Establish your frameworks clearly or else I would be deciding upon my own values.

Speaking clearly and slowly with emphasis will help with my flowing.

Good luck and have fun

Most importantly, I care about justice and try to provide much knowledge of each round. A higher ranking will be given to the team with more relevant analysis, more stakeholders, convincible arguments and more significant impact. I'll listen to each debater carefully. So lying in FF is meaningless because I will take notes on what you have mentioned.

I compare each team and give feedback to both sides after each round. But I will still be glad to provide you with personal feedback and the keys to your questions if you ask.

It would be best if you thought about analysing reasons for your arguments and weighing over your opponents before the debate and speech started. Besides, you should pay much attention to your speech structure.

Please do not offend your opponents for any reason, even if they have distinct personalities, speech styles or beliefs. Your offence will hurt others deeply. Please don't just read the material. Even if you're debating online, you are still seen on the screen.

Wish you can do great jobs!

Most importantly, I care about justice and try to provide much knowledge of each round. A higher ranking will be given to the team with more relevant analysis, more stakeholders, convincible arguments and more significant impact. I'll listen to each debater carefully. So lying in FF is meaningless because I will take notes on what you have mentioned.

I compare each team and give feedback to both sides after each round. But I will still be glad to provide you with personal feedback and the keys to your questions if you ask.

It would be best if you thought about analysing reasons for your arguments and weighing over your opponents before the debate and speech started. Besides, you should pay much attention to your speech structure.

Please do not offend your opponents for any reason, even if they have distinct personalities, speech styles or beliefs. Your offence will hurt others deeply. Please don't just read the material. Even if you're debating online, you are still seen on the screen.

Wish you can do great jobs!

Debate/Judging experience:

I debated, coached, and judged tournaments in China for the past three years.

Judging preferences:

I want to believe that debating is all about effective communication, I would appreciate speeches that are crafted, mechanized, emphasized and purposeful. Exchanges can get intense, but teams still need to see their opponent and contribute to moving the debate forward. The use of evidence can benefit one's case as long as it's been explained and impacted at that specific moment, I wouldn't be able to credit one underdeveloped evidence even though it's awesome.

Debate/Judging experience:

I debated, coached, and judged tournaments in China for the past three years.

Judging preferences:

I want to believe that debating is all about effective communication, I would appreciate speeches that are crafted, mechanized, emphasized and purposeful. Exchanges can get intense, but teams still need to see their opponent and contribute to moving the debate forward. The use of evidence can benefit one's case as long as it's been explained and impacted at that specific moment, I wouldn't be able to credit one underdeveloped evidence even though it's awesome.

I define myself as a Flay Judge, and most of my judging experiences have been in public speaking and storytelling.

Debate Judging background

· 2022 FALL THE 4^th National Invitational Forensics Tournament NIFT

· Public Forum NHSDLC HZ Training

· 2022 NHSDLC Fall Hangzhou Tournament

· Harvard Asian Junior Debate Tournament China National

How I judge

I base it mostly on which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument. I deliberate on the overall presentation based on the arguments presented in the round.

Other specifics about my judging style

1. I don't mind if you speak too fast, I’m not going to say anything until I've been given permission to speak or interfere. It's just that, I won't be able to validate your arguments if I can't comprehend what you're saying, unless you are very articulate, and your pronunciation is clear and accurate. If you spread, I'd still try to take note, however, I’m very fussy with articulation so if I won't understand you, I’d probably just stop flowing. Even though I do signposting, I also use dictator software or an app to thoroughly follow your argumentation, so if you spread and are disorderly, so is my flow or I’d rather just stop flowing. Take note that attempting to win just because your opponent cannot answer all of your points due to your spreading indicates that you do not believe your arguments will stand up during a debate.
2. As judges attempt to dismiss their own biases and experiences when judging, and we may or may not be knowledgeable on the issue, it all comes down to how you present your arguments or reasoning. You may have done a fantastic six-page study but knowing how you compress ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A TWO-MINUTE SPEECH is what matters. Please do not just say, "So judge, please vote for us," to fill in the gaps between your closing arguments, especially if it is a one-on-one debate. Furthermore, the summary is where improvements are most crucial. In summation, if you don't expound on things, don't bring them up in the final focus.
3. I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I may intervene on behalf of opposing teams. Be courteous, especially in times of conflict. If you're unsure if you should be sassy, don't be. I will deduct points for impolite behavior because this is an educational exercise.
4. Try not to be very scripted, and learn to rephrase your notes. Depending on how much time is left I may or may not provide oral RFDs, as I may also need more time to evaluate my flow.

I define myself as a Flay Judge, and most of my judging experiences have been in public speaking and storytelling.

Debate Judging background

· 2022 FALL THE 4^th National Invitational Forensics Tournament NIFT

· Public Forum NHSDLC HZ Training

· 2022 NHSDLC Fall Hangzhou Tournament

· Harvard Asian Junior Debate Tournament China National

How I judge

I base it mostly on which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument. I deliberate on the overall presentation based on the arguments presented in the round.

Other specifics about my judging style

1. I don't mind if you speak too fast, I’m not going to say anything until I've been given permission to speak or interfere. It's just that, I won't be able to validate your arguments if I can't comprehend what you're saying, unless you are very articulate, and your pronunciation is clear and accurate. If you spread, I'd still try to take note, however, I’m very fussy with articulation so if I won't understand you, I’d probably just stop flowing. Even though I do signposting, I also use dictator software or an app to thoroughly follow your argumentation, so if you spread and are disorderly, so is my flow or I’d rather just stop flowing. Take note that attempting to win just because your opponent cannot answer all of your points due to your spreading indicates that you do not believe your arguments will stand up during a debate.
2. As judges attempt to dismiss their own biases and experiences when judging, and we may or may not be knowledgeable on the issue, it all comes down to how you present your arguments or reasoning. You may have done a fantastic six-page study but knowing how you compress ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A TWO-MINUTE SPEECH is what matters. Please do not just say, "So judge, please vote for us," to fill in the gaps between your closing arguments, especially if it is a one-on-one debate. Furthermore, the summary is where improvements are most crucial. In summation, if you don't expound on things, don't bring them up in the final focus.
3. I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I may intervene on behalf of opposing teams. Be courteous, especially in times of conflict. If you're unsure if you should be sassy, don't be. I will deduct points for impolite behavior because this is an educational exercise.
4. Try not to be very scripted, and learn to rephrase your notes. Depending on how much time is left I may or may not provide oral RFDs, as I may also need more time to evaluate my flow.

framework is important. All kinds of debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team…. On the other hand , I pay good attention to arguments during the clashes and how one is able respond to clashes thrown at them during the crossfires

framework is important. All kinds of debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team…. On the other hand , I pay good attention to arguments during the clashes and how one is able respond to clashes thrown at them during the crossfires

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

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.

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.