JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI

AGE: 23 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

DEBATE ETIQUETTE

Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.

I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.

SPEAKER POINTS

When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.

Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.

I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.

This is Annika. I am currently studying medicine at Peking University. I am a former PF debater and now a judge. I was 2020 NSDA China National Tournament's second place, NSDA China Beijing Open Champion, NSDA China Chongqiong& Jinan Open Champion. I also have two years of experience in BP.

Firstly, i value framework a lot. All your impacts should link back to your framework, that is my criteria to weigh the impact when judging. Secondly, do not offer me vague impacts, i need quantifiable impact to actually prioritize their importance. Thirdly, do not just simply give me cards and evidence, please do more comparison. Tell me why your evidence is more preferable. Fourthly, every speech needs to have a good structure to offer me the chance of having good flow. Last but not least

For constructive speech, i am okay with full speed reading. For rebuttal, give me signpost. For crossfire, i do not care if you are aggressive or passive. Just don't be too rude and do not interrupt others. For summary and final focus, remember to extend your argument and do not drop anything. Comparison and weighing are required to win. You can neither be too defensive nor offensive.

                                                                    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

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
Defining the topic helps provide clarity about what the debate will focus on. It ensures that all
participants understand the subject matter and avoid unnecessary tangents or confusion. Clearly defining the topic ensures that all participants have an equal understanding of what is being discussed, preventing any unfair advantages or misunderstandings.
How important is the framework to your decision making?
Having a solid framework is essential for navigating through the exchange of ideas, supporting positions with evidence, and ultimately influencing my decision as a judge. It provides a roadmap for constructing and delivering compelling arguments, contributing significantly to the overall effectiveness of the debate.
How important is the crossfire in your decision making?
In a debate, crossfire is crucial in my decision-making because it allows for direct communication between participants, which makes it easier to clarify points, offer rebuttals, and assess flexibility and critical thinking abilities in real time. This stage provides the opportunity to refute the arguments of opponents while also requiring quick thinking to fill in any holes or weaknesses in the arguments. Crucially, a debater's performance during crossfire influences my perceptions, impacting the debater's position's overall credibility and persuasiveness. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the decision-making process regarding the strength and conviction of arguments presented.
How important is weighing in your decision making?
Argument weighing, which entails comparing and evaluating arguments according to their persuasiveness, quality, and relevance, is a crucial aspect of decision-making during a debate. Debaters can distinguish between important points, rank the strongest arguments, and successfully respond to counterarguments by using this technique. Argument weighing guides me as a judge in determining the most compelling and convincing side of the debate, influencing the final decision regarding the debate's resolution by assessing the strength of evidence, logical reasoning, and relevance to the topic.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication are crucial in debate decision-making because they have a significant impact on the delivery and reception of arguments. Persuasive speaking improves the persuasiveness and memorability of arguments through powerful rhetoric and skillful language use, which affects how I evaluate the strength of a debater's position. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication, which includes body language, gestures, and demeanor, supplements verbal arguments by conveying confidence, credibility, and sincerity, ultimately shaping decision-makers' perceptions and having a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the debate's outcome.
How fast should students speak?
Students should generally speak clearly and at a pace that is understandable to the other participants in a debate. Even at faster speaking rates, it's critical to preserve coherence and clarity in debate formats that may promote it. The secret is to effectively communicate arguments without compromising their clarity. Students should strive to speak at a speed that will enable them to interact with their opponents, support their arguments, and make themselves understood by the judge. In order to communicate effectively during a debate, one must strike a balance between speed, articulation and clarity

MY JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: MUTITI WAITHANJI

AGE: 50 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPATION: UNIVERSITY LECTURER

Currently I am a university lecturer at University of Kabianga, School of Education and Social Sciences, Kenya. I have been a high school teacher in Kenya for over fifteen years, teaching English Language to International General Certificate Education (IGCSE) students. I have participated in moderating National school debates, and I do currently participate in our University students debates every semester. In my judging I prefer moderately fast speakers, as this would help them to marshal their points home easily. I like concise and well thought out arguments, debaters who can aggressively prod the responses of their opponents with decorum, and intellectual maturity. This would with an aim of getting clarifications and a possible avenue for further learning and getting more refined in terms of speech and debating skills. In the debate arena I will seek to understand the framework on which the competitors predicate their argument, how they go about proving their claims and with what results. Logical flow, clarity of thought and good flow of clashes and strong rebuttals would be my point for calling a debate. I anticipate a fruitful engagement and learning experience for all.

I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.

I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.

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

I believe all the debaters have make an exhaustive preparation on their cases and long for make the best of them in every round. But I highly suggest debaters pacing themselves when providing a speech in order to avoid slurring words together and to make the content more understandable since audiences and judges are not machine and they’re not knowing about everything for every motion. Make sure ur essential linkage,impact and evidence are understandable.

I think aggressiveness in debate can be good. It can really make the debate more dynamic and active. However, I believe a good debaters can differentiate aggressive and rude.Debaters who cross the line and disrupt the order will be punished.

Which team can provide more solid logic link (probability) and concrete impact (magnitude) can win this debate. Evidence is also important for me to weigh the exact impact from both team but I do believe it means little if the linkage and impact are underdeveloped.

anli+debate@u.northwestern.edu for the email chain

Hello! I'm a public forum competitor from the Chinese circuit with over 100 rounds of judging experience, over 150 rounds of competitive experience, and more than three years of experience providing coaching services in one way or another (e.g., preparing research briefs, judging mock debate rounds, etc.). I've collated probably 500,000 words of cards in my debate career. In total, I have more hours in PF debate than my entire Steam library combined.

If you were coached in the Chinese circuit, either read and understand my entire paradigm if you want a fair chance of winning or strike me. It’s your choice.

Concise Version PF 2023

1. If you use clashes you'll probably lose. Winning a clash NEVER equals winning a debate, even if you win more clashes. Instead of using this lazy way, I expect all teams to collapse in summary (how you do this is up to you) which is gonna teach you how to actually critically think instead of just read a script.
2. I also expect all teams to weigh in summary
3. 2nd Rebuttal MUST frontline unless you read theory to justify why not (which skews your time even more, just frontline)
4. I will ignore you in cross
5. If you don't READ (as in, SAY OUT LOUD) the author AND year when introducing your evidence, I'll write on my RFD that you had ZERO evidence. Don't even bothering contesting this, I write down the year and an abbreviation of the author the second you say it so just get good
6. Extensions must have author OR author and year
7. Traditional PF debaters are statistically more likely to lose because of how much I dislike traditional PF debate
8. I can handle spreading but am also open to spreading theory
9. I'll vote on new theory added in second final focus if abuse is severe enough

Before the round starts, you have the option and opportunity to tell me four things, all of which I highly encourage:

1. Flow preference. On paper or digital? If digital, do you want me to do it on Google Sheets and share it with you after the round? If on paper, do you want me to scan the flow and give you a copy after the round? If offline and you want me to flow on paper, will you provide the paper? Keep in mind that my digital flows often have columns dedicated to the issues I have with your arguments, e.g. "doesn't engage", so these are quite useful to see what I interpreted correctly and incorrectly.
2. What color do you want to be on my flow? If I'm flowing on paper, I'll give you options. If digital, you can choose any of 16777216 colors, but keep in mind choosing an unreadable color means I'll drop all of your arguments. I'm serious. If it helps, my spreadsheets are always in light mode, so I encourage choosing a darker color (standard red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, black, and cyan are all safe options).
3. If you want feedback after the round, do you want it orally or do you want me to give it to you later via email/text/snail-mail/etc? The latter allows for way more detail but I might... forget some semantics of the round
4. Pronouns

"Pre Theory" (not enforcing these rn)

The following two shells are presumed as true by me before the round even starts, without anyone needing to read them. This is to make the round more inclusive and fair and reduce timesucks. The default voter for all of these shells is "drop the debater."

1. TW theory. Teams must read trigger warnings for arguments that involve violence, r*pe, gore, transphobia, homophobia, etc. including an opt out. I'll exclude broader "death" from this because those are common and rather vague, but if a team believes death should be included as well, you can read theory to implicate this as the case.
2. Pronouns theory. You must use they/them for all debaters and judges in the round unless specified otherwise. If you violate this on accident, simply correct yourself, but if not, I will drop you.

Tech vs Truth

I want to say I'm tech over truth but objectively I'm split 80/20. If you read a crazy argument like (insert your argument), there are two possibilities of how I interpret it:

1. If you have a lot of evidence, even if it's fake, as long as you read the source and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I'll basically take your best case scenario. Once I voted for extinction in elims (and it was a 2-1 for them) because they had reasonable evidence and the opposing engagement with the scenario was inadequate. But if you get caught, you autolose (see evidence ethics).
2. If your links are assertions, expect me to not buy a single one.

Basically, if you have cards, I'm tech over truth; if you read an assertion, I'm truth over tech.

Speech Burdens

1. Second rebuttal must frontline unless you read a theoretical reason why not. Summary must extend defense. Impacts to be weighed must be in both summary and final focus in order for me to consider them, including the entire link chain + all cards. This is to incentivize all debaters to collapse.
2. Final focus must both (1) match summary and (2) have every single impact you want me to vote on. To have an impact doesn't just mean extending the impact, it also includes extending all responses to turns, all links, all internal links, and uniqueness – and all must be carded.
3. If second rebuttal doesn't frontline, your defense is sticky through first summary. In general, all defense (turns, delinks) are sticky until responded to. However, all defense needed to win my vote must be extended into final focus (this generally forces the second speakers to collapse, which is good imo).
4. I will ignore both teams during cross.
5. When you extend impacts in summary, you must extend the entire link chain including all cards.

Evidence Ethics

Super Important. MUST READ. According to the NSDA's official rules found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf: (1) if you add ellipses to your card, you autolose with 0 speaks; (2) if you distort even a single card, even unintentionally, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (3) if you can't produce a card or website for requested evidence, EVEN ONCE, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (4) if you clip your card and you get caught, you autolose with 0 speaks. I'll expand on this with two points: (1) if your opponent wants your source and you only send a URL and exclude author/year, you autolose though I'll still give you speaks; (2) if both teams violate these guidelines, the first team to violate them loses. And for the record, (1) if the tournament you're at doesn't let me give you zero speaks, I'll be marking you as having FORFEITED THE ROUND; (2) this applies to ALL DEBATERS, even those who are novices or who did so on accident because the only way you will ever learn from a mistake is confronting it head on.

Pulling from the same link, if you believe your opponent is falsifying or severely cherry-picking evidence, you have the right to stop the round AT ANY TIME, including during an opponent speech. If your opponent is indeed lying about the evidence, the round immediately ends and you win. If your opponent is NOT lying, the round immediately ends and you LOSE.

Three more definitional things:

1. Cards. If you don't read the author and year on first introduction, it's not a card.
2. Extensions. If you don't read the author on extension, it's not an extension.
3. Cites. If you don't send author, year, and place where somebody could find the source (URL, DOI, title of the book), it's not a citation.

Rhetorical Choices

1. If you use abusively harmful rhetoric (e.g., racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist) intentionally, i.e., you knowingly extend it, it's part of your card, tagline, etc., I will autolose you even if your opponent doesn't point it out. If it's by mistake and you realize you've said something wrong and correct it, no penalty.
2. If you say "him or her" or "he or she" or something instead of a gender neutral pronoun I will drop you for it.

Frameworks

1. If your framework doesn't have a warranted justification, I'll drop your framework. If neither side does, I'll use modified CBA: extinction always comes first, structural violence second, and then util.
2. CBA doesn't need a warrant

Theory

Three things to say about theory:

1. Theory ALWAYS comes first. NO exceptions.
2. If your theory shell doesn't have reasonable justifications (in the standards section or somewhere reasonable), I'll consider voting on it, but I'll really hate you for it and I'll dock your speaks.
3. Disclosure. Please do it. But if you read reasons why not, then I don't care.

Speed

I can comprehend spreading and will say "clear" when it's too fast, except when banned by the tournament. If you decide to spread, there are three things to note:

1. If your opponent reads "speed bad" or "speed theory" or "clear theory" or whatever and you don't clear, you're going to lose.
2. You must give me a speech doc if you're going to go above 300wpm otherwise I will visibly roll my eyes at you, stop flowing, and autolose you (the exception is if you're really clear with your reading and I can't tell you're going so fast).
3. In circuits where speech docs/disclosure are uncommon, you alone will bear full consequences if I decide to stop flowing due to speed.

Speaks

I start at a 28.0 and go up or down based on strategic choices. If you extend every impact into summary, expect your speaks to dip. If you collapse better than I ever could, expect your speaks to shoot up. If you want a bonus:

• Bring me a soda (if offline) and you'll get a 0.3 point bonus
• If you physically turn every time you say turn, you get a 0.3 speak bonus
• If your virtual background (if online) is related to, relevant to, and boosts the rhetorical appeal of your argument, you get a 0.3 speak bonus.
• If you refer to every single author (repeat, every single one) with they/them pronouns, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus. My ears are basically tuned to he/him or she/her because of my own identity, so I'll know if you use the wrong pronoun. The exception is if you have additional evidence to show one of your authors' pronoun preferences, such as their Twitter page.
• If your summary or final focus starts with a funny joke, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus.

The max bonus per round, per speaker is 1.2 points for offline tournaments and 0.9 points for online tournaments. This means you still need good strategy for a 30.

Non-PF Argumentation in PF

The following are my stance(s) on non-traditional arguments/styles commonly seen in LD/CX:

1. Plans. PF rules state that plans are banned, but I... disagree. If the resolution is really broad, I don't see why you can't have a plan. But you need to at least try to prove probability. A super absurd, stupid plan won't fly in PF because that's not what this format is for. So reading "CP: The USFG should give everyone Spotify Premium" just isn't going to convince me. At least try to be topical. Can't say I'm opposed to a plan/cp of something that's actually likely to happen.
2. NIBs. If you can execute it well, sure. Remember not to drop it in summary or final focus.
3. PICs. If the resolution is super wacky like uh uh uh "Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all illicit drugs." and you read a states CP, I really don't see why I shouldn't give you credit for it. As long as you prove (a) your CP is probable, (b) it's exclusive, and (c) it outweighs, I'm not against giving you credit for PICs.
4. Ks. Honestly why not? As long as it's coherent, I'll give you credit for kritiks. However, if you read some niche philosophy K that I'm not familiar with, you risk the entire argument flying over my head, and if that happens, you're taking responsibility.

Finally, I won't memorize the things I write in my paradigm – just know that I'll enforce certain points more often than others and be more lenient depending on the tournament I'm at/round quality/etc. And, if you game my paradigm to win rather than become a better debater, you'll be the one who regrets it.

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.