BRIAN BWANYA

AGE: 24

COLLEGE: NANJING UNIVERSITY

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

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

I have been honored to represent my school as a first speaker back in high school at both provincial and national level during the 2019 season and participated in numerous high school debates in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I prefer moderate and composed talking. Fast talking can result in poor word articulation and the judge(s) might miss a curial argument. I do not encourage debaters to use speed rather use substance to overwhelm your opponents. Quality over Quantity.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

It's important to present your arguments with conviction and passion but always maintain a respectful and professional approach. Keep in mind that, the main aim is to persuade others with logic and mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Well l take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with concise logic and in-depth analysis, persuasiveness and clear arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?

It's important for me to see clear arguments presented by both sides backed with recent and relevant evidence. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or insults even derogatory language. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Age: 25

College: Nanjing Medical University

Current Occupancy: Student in College

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

I have 4 years of experience as a debater. I have participated in Public Forum debates, World School debates, and British Parliamentary debates.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

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

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

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

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I believe that public forum debate is all about reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence and impact. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and the impact, you can win the round. Therefore, the team with the better claim, warrant, and impact wins the round.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference for the debate.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on four speeches: constructive, rebuttal, summary, and final focus. As long as you do well in these four speeches, you are guaranteed success.

Good luck and remember to have fun, everyone!

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

NGALULA JOJO

AGE:23

COLLEGE:NANJING UNIVERSITY OF POST AND TELECOMMUNICATION

CURRENT OCCUPANCY:STUDENT

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

I did debate when I was in high school went up to provincial level in 2017 and 2018.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I don’t mind fast talking but I do prefer moderate and composed talking. Talking fast can result in poor word articulation and the judges might miss crucial argument moreover I think value over volume.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

Arguments should be presented with passion but always be respectful and professional. Keep in mind that, the main aim should be to persuade others with logic and especially the mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I take into consideration the entire debate before determining the team which wins. The team which has the most persuasive argument and is backed by logic.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?

It's extremely important that your arguments are presented as clear as possible with proper breakdown so that I can follow along and it needs to be backed up with relevant evidence. I do prefer debaters who are able to conduct themselves professionally by remaining calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks. Lastly, don’t go on tangents and give irrelevant arguments do your best to stick to the topic.

                                                                    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

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 debated for 5 years for VDA in PF and currently debate for Rice University in NPDA Parli.

Please include me in the email chain: ww53@rice.edu

Some general expectations for rounds:

1.) The singular most important thing for me is terminalization, warranting and weighing. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. PREETY PRETTY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TERMINALIZE IMPACTS.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument.

3.) Must frontline offense in Second Rebuttal. I view any dropped offense that are read in first rebuttal, ie turns, as conceded if second rebuttal does not frontline. Second summary is way too late to present any new frontlines or responses.

4.) Progressive Argumentation. I am familiar with progressive argumentation such as Ks, Ts, etc. If you feel the necessity to run these argumentations, I will evaluate them. If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

5.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. If the arguments that both teams present to me are uncomparative, then I will be forced to intervene. One team will be unhappy.

6.) Tech > Truth. I view debate as a strategic academic game with arguments as the game’s pieces. I flow and will vote on anything so long as it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against other arguments in the round, and is not offensive or exclusionary. I default to Neg on presumption if there is no offense from either team. I vote strictly off the flow.

7.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said.

8.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low.

9.) I do not flow cross. If there is something that you think is important that came up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Nonetheless, the last thing that I wish to see in cross is people yelling over each other. So please be polite.

10.) Racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

11.) Speed. I am fairly comfortable with speed but definitely not comfortable flowing anything that is going Mach 5 speed. Please ensure that you are clear or send a speech doc before hand!

12.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Every reference to Twoset will boost your speaks by 0.1.

Above all, be nice and have fun!

Will vote for anything

for detail, refer to https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=107331

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.