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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience with NHSDLC the past several mothns. Judging PF online and offline tournaments.

2. Fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

TONY KIMANI

Age: 24

Current occupation: Undergraduate Student

College: Central South University, Hunan, Changsha

During my four years of high school years, I participated in various debates as a speaker, and in the 2018-2019 national debate, I participated as a judge. Some debate topics included:

1.Universal Basic Income (UBI): Should governments provide a guaranteed income to all citizens, regardless of their employment status, to alleviate poverty and promote economic stability?

2.Internet Privacy: Is it justified for governments or corporations to monitor and collect personal data?

3.Genetic Engineering and CRISPR Technology: Should humans be allowed to modify the genetic makeup of living organisms, including human embryos, to treat diseases or enhance desirable traits?

4.Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Should societies prioritize the protection of free speech, even if it means allowing hate speech?

I consider fast talking as a level of confidence and time consciousness as long as the speed doesn’t render the words said by the speaker unclear. Politeness is a key aspect of giving out speaker points as it ensures order in the debate room. I make a judgment on the winner based on the logic of the clash and how the speaker debates the claim. This, however, needs substantial up-to-date evidence and logic.

I would urge debaters to be composed and argue their points without rushing. If debaters are well prepared to debate either as a pro or con of a debate, then they will stand in a good position in making reasonable claims and in the crossfire.

In speeches, I like to see confidence and composure. It displays good understanding of the topic and shows that the speaker practiced enough before the presentation.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University, Canadian Policy Debate

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com

I would strongly prefer not to judge online, please strike me if you debate online. I understand and empathize with accessibility issues. I will of course not hold it against you if you do pref me but I also request that you please place other judges above me if you debate online.

Dropped arguments are considered true. If you aren't a very technical debater, then I am likely a poor judge for you. I am unlikely to be forgiving of technical mistakes and I am unlikely to dismiss arguments on your behalf.

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

I only evaluate arguments on my flow. I do not evaluate "rep", good debaters give bad speeches and vice versa, your past successes do not matter to me --- I only care how you debate on the flow. I dislike judges who give indefensible decisions and do not respect the efforts of debaters and care more about their perception in the community. Unlike judges who claim to be tech over truth but make exceptions for certain arguments, I do not bias against arguments just because of their content. I don't bias against arguments simply because are K or Policy. I do not bias against arguments like death good simply because they are immoral. I will not discount arguments like ASPEC if dropped simply because it is a "cheapshot".

Note that being technical is not an excuse to replace depth with blippy argumentation. I will reward quality arguments, judge instruction, and big picture round vision.

Please do explicit application of your overview/blocks and crossapplication of your arguments on the line by line. Otherwise you risk being upset at how I put the arguments together.

Wake 2024 Update:
Please read fun arguments! I love debate because of intellectual freedom, which matters more to me than simply winning. I love creative positions, impact turns, random procedurals, & funny meme arguments. I will share three of my many meme arguments as inspiration. 1) I ended my career arguing that we should all confess our sins to the Christian God (I am a buddhist) 2) In high school I pioneered the wingdings CP --- read the plan text in wingdings with a variety of net benefits like secrecy good, baudrilliard, etc and argue that it textually competes and lol I somehow was 5-0 on wingdings. 3) Lastly, my favorite: in the spirit of Wake Debate, shoutout to Taj1.5Chips, who voted that Messi was a nuclear weapon.

Michigan 2024 Update:

Here is some more detail on my takes on arguments. Note that technical debating outweighs these.

• I have zero desire to judge anything not about the debate in front of me. Please no screenshots. Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.
• I have a lower bar for a warrant than the community. This means that I will vote on severance perms are a voter.
• Despite a low bar for a warrant, I am often persuaded by high quality arguments and evidence. I read along following the cards during the speeches.
• Inserting rehighlightings is fine.
• Well explained specific recent evidence > good spin & analytics > horrible evidence
• I flow CX --- I am easily persuaded that CX is binding.
• I rarely vote on zero risk, but I can be persuaded by developed framing. Usually try or die is quite persuasive. Usually fast DA, "live to fight another day" is also persuasive. I could also be persuaded that magnitude times probability framing is bad.
• In advantage vs disadvantage debates I care a lot about uniqueness. Generally if the status quo is doomed then I end up voting aff more often as most people in the try or die cult do. Vice versa if the squo is fine, then I am very persuaded by only a risk of a link framing.
• My pet peeve is laundry list impacts, be so fr. My bar is very low for analytic impact defense to these.
• I will vote on intrinsicness against politics. Be technical on this question, if you blow it off you can lose if properly executed.
• Turns case is very persuasive. Carded turns case is extra persuasive. However, I find accessing an impact is generally far more important, it is better to invest time proving the substance of your advantage or DA which you need in order to win turns case. Additionally, this is why I find arguments like 'link alone turns case' very persuasive, it lowers the burden of what you need to win.
• I often care about comparative risks. If the aff doesn't go for a solvency deficit and says that the CP links to the net benefit but the neg argues that the CP links less, then I would vote neg. Similarly I care a lot about whether the link turn outweighs the link and vice versa.
• I interpret sufficiency framing as judge instruction not to do work for aff solvency deficits. I would prefer direct comparison between the solvency deficit and the net benefit. Solvency deficits need impacts.
• I have to know what the CP does to vote for it, a complicated/vague CP text paired with poor explanation is unlikely to get my ballot.
• I am good for CP theory. I think well crafted interps are essential, for instance all CPs have a process. I understand but slightly disagree with the sentiment that theoretical objections are better expressed through competition, I find "this cp good/bad" theory arguments persuasive. I find textual and functional to be quite defensible. I think functional only is also fine. I can be persuaded that intrinsic permutations are justified. Note that I flow CX and can be persuaded of positional competition. Note that I am far less persuaded by taking lines from aff evidence to justify competition than CX. If you say the plan is congress in CX, then I am easily persuaded that courts compete. If you say the mandate of the plan must include a list of things, then I am easily persuaded by PICs out of one or more. However, you can avoid this with vague language or being explicit your response is a possible way the plan could be implemented. However, note that I am good for vagueness and specification procedurals.
• I don't judge kick unless instructed. My bar for what counts as instruction is low. If you say condo in CX I assume this means judge kick. I also assume dispo means judge kick. I also can be persuaded that judge kick is bad.
• Condo is about models. I don't really care about a particular number. I have no issue with neg terrorism and perf con but also do not bias against a condo 2ar.
• Regarding condo I find this part of Jordan Di's paradigm persuasive -- "It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR."
• I am easily persuaded that rejecting the argument remedies the introduction of abusive positions into debate. I am easily persuaded that condo is different because kicking no cost options is the warrant for skew.
• T is about models. Reasonability is best explained through arguments like arbitrariness or substance crowdout and not whining about why your aff is core of the topic. I do not care about camp norms.
• I am generally good for plan text in a vacuum. To win the opposite you need to clearly define and justify the alternative. For instance, I think generally CX is binding and can be persuaded that CX explains what the plan means. I am far less persuaded by use of random aff lines to garner a violation. Please be technical, introduce justifications for PTIV with LBL against criticisms and vice versa.
• I'm far better than average for specification and vagueness arguments. I think they can be reasons to reject the team and if properly technically executed neg teams can defeat many of the 2ACs to these off case positions.
• K v Policy Affs - FW & Kaffs - be technical. I have been on both sides. I do not care.
• I make no apology for voting on technical tricks like truth testing or overcorrect. I will vote for theory against the alt like utopian fiat/PIKs bad. I will vote for independent voting issues/CSULB style of K theory arguments, especially if dropped. So be technical if you want to win. Tech over truth.
• In K debates, I think generally impact calc matters more than big picture defense. In a Kaff v FW debate, realistically the TVA rarely solves aff offense and the CI rarely solves limits. Similarly, in a neg K vs policy aff debate, I view middling interps as unstrategic and mediocre defense to the other sides offense. Tell me why your impact matters more. However, note that while I believe big picture defense is not helpful, I am easily persuaded by specific defense to specific points made on the flow. I am also persuaded by top level impact comparison. I can be persuaded that impacts like racism rely on fairness. I can be persuaded that racism is procedurally unfair. Use offense, impact comparison, & specific defense to get my ballot. The more technical team will win this debate.
• Also 3 hot takes about K debate. 1) The perm double bind only makes sense against alts that are implemented. If you fiat a philosophy that disagrees with the aff then the alt would be mutually exclusive and "ban the plan" 2) False equivalencies are false. Nearly 50% of the time, the link to the plan is a stretch. If you are a neg going for the K just go hard on framework if you have a horrible link. If you are an aff against the K, point out that the link is incoherent. 3) The Cap K against Kaffs is very very horrible at least 50% of the time. Read something else in the 1NR. Look at the Dartmouth wiki on alliances for inspiration.
• Lastly my most important take. Ballot defense is overrated. If you want to win a clash debate in front of me, this is the most important thing you should read. Two thoughts: 1) Do more line by line instead. Spending all your time on explaining why the ballot can only solve fairness is essentially aiming for terminal defense to K offense, which is winnable, but you're hoping I don't conclude there's only a risk of K offense and you risk losing to try or die for K offense + impact calc, so you are better off doing more line by line to take out K offense. Vice versa, as a K team do more line by line trying to win your offense. Ballot defense is not the end all be all. As a policy team you don't need to go all in on debate is just a game and you can go for fairness and clash/other external offense together. It is not necessarily the case that the ballot does nothing or it does something. I can be easily persuaded that it is an "even if" claim. If the ballot does nothing, then fairness is all that matters --- but if it does matter, then impacts like clash matter. I think other judges vote far too often on ballot does nothing arguments. I can be persuaded that arguments like the ballot doesn't need to solve all racism, ballot is a microaffirmations, ballot can serve as accountability, & ballot mean that there is only a risk of offense. To be clear this is a winnable debate. I find arguments like alt causes to subjectivity shift and the ballot can only solve fairness persuasive. You can technically win that debate is just a game and the ballot does nothing. But this brings me to my second point. 2)You are much better off going for offense explaining why a ballot for the K team is actively bad. External ballot offense is very crucial to helping you win debates. If you are a K team, exploit external ballot offense like independent voting issues as a net benefit to voting for you. If you are a policy team, explain why arguments like oppression olympics, negating personal identity bad, judge cooption, & Taiwo apply to the K ballot offense in addition to having fairness as external offense. The team that has better external offense + impact comparison and does better line by line will win my ballot.

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

I'm Auster Shi, who's now taking a bachelor program at Communication University of China, and once debated for over 3 years. Now I've been judging Public Forum debate for over a year in multiple tournaments in Mainland China.

I'd like to hear an off-time road map that is brief and clear to follow before both summary and final focus in case of some debaters might jump between lines unintentionally. Also, these two speeches presented in an efficient way with details covered and necessary comparison are surely a strike in my zone.

No overlapping during crossfire. That's the only thing that I desperately need when judging long tournaments with several rounds. Other things like discrimination and hatred speech will not get me to burst into anger right away but immediately report to the tabroom.

Anyways, hope that we can have a great debate time together.

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 .

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.

Hi All,

This is John, currently a first yeart at UBCV. I have had experience in both parliament debate styles in Canada for over 2 years and PF mainly in the chinese circuit for over 4 years, during which I won and top spoke numerous tournaments and many other awards.

Awards don't make a judge so I won't go into them, so let's go over my standards of judging. I'll talk about the most concerned issues in this paradigm - Speed and Speaks. Other than that, I welcome all kinds of arguement so please feel free to talk about Ks, non-PF args or any other if you like. You might wonder how do you win? Just do your best and I'll see if it's enough :) . In some rounds I might give win based on the number of clashes won by a team, in other's I might give based the imperativeness/importance of arguements, or which team is more aligned with their args. So, just do what you gotta do!

Essential Notes:

Be happy, be nice to others in the round. I might give you free speaks if you act kindly or vice versa.

Speed:

I'm ok with anything around 200 words per minute, but anything beyond that, especially when you have a bunch of numbers/stats/fancy words together, you are at a high risk of losing me. I will continue to flow down whatever I can, but I'll leave a note in your speaker comment area saying "your speech has gone mad". If you wondered why you said certain points in refutation, summary... but I did not have those down on my RFD, you would know why after you saw the comment above. So, be sure to slow down when you have important links or numbers you want me to write down.

Speaks:

Important Note:

1. NO "30s" roadmap, please.
2. If you say you are going to implicate on something later and you didn't, I might duct [or not based on tournament rules] your speech by 0.5 as this is going to occupy part of my cognitive resources which affects my ability to flow.

Your speaks auto a 27.5.

For the first speaker on each team:

1. If you gave me a clear, direct, and impactful case that's being delivered in a coherent manner, I would increase your speaks by 0.5.
2. If you were able to offer me some creative and unique points and I found those arguements concrete and topic-relatable, I would give you an additional 0.5 to you.
3. Summary/second rebuttal should collapse regardless of wether you are on Team A or Team B - I would give you another 0.5 if did a good job at collapsing (weighing as well). I prefer you to run-over in your summary (If you did this fabulously, you are guaranteed minumum 29.5) but you can structured the speech in any form you like.
4. The 1 point left would be based on your performance during the first CF and grand CF.

For the second speaker on each team:

1. You should start weighing in your refutation. If you do good weighings I'll increase your speaks by 0.5-1. Don't give me a million warrant turns, as you are just "neutralizing" their arguments which doesn't tell me why they are wrong.
2. If you want to disprove their warrant card/impact card, you need to talk about the research methods or other technical loopholes in their cards (please do not worry as I have preliminary knowledge, and If you did this fabulously, you are guranteed a minumum 29.5). However, if you wanted to point out something that wasn't mention in their cards or they were cherry-picking on their cards - mention it in your speech and I'll ask (You might have to remind me).
3. Impact turns are more than welcomed! If you offer me good impact turns I'll give you an anditional 0.5. Non-uqinueness and impact minimization gives you a 0.25-0.5 increment depends on how you say them. I'll also consider logic-based refutation/paradox... if you mentioned this when the materials allow, I would give you a 0.25-0.5 increment.
4. Final Focus should be focused on clashes. I wouldn't consider arguments that were dropped even if you mention them because they were essentially excluded from the debate, so both team regarded them as "unimportant". The only exception is if the arguments dropped were constantly reminded by a team. I'll reward a 0.5 increment (if your current score allows) if you were able to point out something that's really important but was not revealed. Of course, it has to be related to the previous materials as well.

Disclaimer:

These criterion are what I can think on the top of my mind for a "One of the best speech". You can definitely amaze me with something else! Be creative! Be bold! Plus there might be round where you just can not perform certain part above, so I'll be mindful of that and adjust my rating, however do be mindful I'm not going to give you comparative rating, which means how strong your opponent doesn't affect the speaks you receive, it's all standard rating of the techniques you show me.

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.

I graduated from Public Communication in Newhouse College, Syracuse University. I participated in NHSDLC during high school and won the Champion in 2018 Guangzhou Regional. I have judged several debates tournaments before. For the debate, I would like to hear more about your logic path and complete arguements. Building a stable framework as the base of your debate is also important. Also, I prefer if you can speak clearly and fluently instead of quickly. Good luck!

My Pronouns are They/Them/He/Him

Put me on the email chain: shaohan.zhou.2016@gmail.com

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards) I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above.

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.

If you have any questions whatsoever, don't feel afraid to ask