I am a new teacher/judge working my second in person tournament. I look forward to seeing you performing your speeches and debating.

For Public Forom Debate - there are a couple of things I ask:

Please be certain when stating your contentions that you clearly enunciate and speak at a normal pace so I can properly hear and record your contentions.

I like a civil crossfire, please use this time to properly address evidence and issues rather than shouting over each other.

Let's have a great tournament.

It takes courage to stand in front of a crowd and present, so I value every student's participation in these events. I will try my very best to be fair and help young people grow and find new confidence.

Firstly, and most important - no spreading (speed reading).

I prefer to hear arguments based on logic; statistics are useful but please do not try to drown me in numbers.

I do want rational arguments, I will not be swayed by sentimentally.

Don't be aggressive with your opponents, be polite and civil.

- This judge evaluates the quality of the arguments presented by the debaters, their relevance to the assigned topic, and the persuasiveness of the arguments prior to the use of humor or rhetorical flourishes.
- This judge evaluates the reasons given by debaters to support their arguments. Debaters should present quality arguments that are well-explained within clear frameworks and supported by relevant evidence from credible sources.
- This judge evaluates how well debaters identify weaknesses in their opponent's arguments and defend themselves against attacks. Anticipating and refuting the possible arguments of their opponents are highly encouraged.
- Fully aware that debating excites people, this judge believes debaters should/try to be polite and respectful to their opponents and judges at all times.
- Debates cannot exist without a receptive space that holds them. Thus, this judge strongly recommends debaters refrain from dominating crossfire, and instead, please allow the opponent to express their thoughts and seek clarification.

This is my first time judging a speech or debate tournament. I lean towards logical arguments. Quality of your evidence is more important than quantity. Appealing to pathos always helps. Delivery is very important and will primarily be what I will be looking at. Please do not read your speeches to me. Eye contact and changing your voice to create specific effects are important.

Enjoy yourself, stay confident no matter what happens. Arouse me at the start and end with a strong conclusion related to your topic. Be concise, structured and indulge me with interesting facts! All the best to you! I would love to hear and understand what you are saying!

I'm looking for coherence above anything else. I believe there is no point in making an argument if it cannot be understood. Therefore, be clear with your arguments and in your presentation.

I tend to favor participants that are the most specific. Specificity is the key to having a good speech or argument, in my opinion. As an English teacher, I tend to use what I look for in an essay as my criteria for judging a debate. I look for a Thesis that is backed up with arguments, analysis, and data.

I'm ok with speed, but sometimes, it's hard to understand when students are reading too fast. I do reserve the right to tell students to slow down.

No spreading. Speak clearly.

Foremost: PLEASE speak in an audible manner, no spreading or muttering

-value clear framework

-value fluent logic

-value evidence

Looking for debaters to be persuasive

I focus on arguments that are carried forward and focused on by the debaters themselves.

I like explicit weighing and justified weighing mechanisms.

I'm open to creative arguments or unique interpretations of topics or resolutions as long as they are logically sound, but do not like Ks that completely ignore the implied substance of the resolution or topic.

I have never judged in a Speech & Debate competition before, but I value clear, logical statements with a simple rhetoric. A strong rebuttal is always important.

I look to see you apply both public speaking and debate skills to use in debates. For each speech, you should be delivering strong arguments with the credible evidence to back up everything you're claiming. Don't spread. Unless you're looking to be an auctioneer in the future, it is of no real use to read as fast as possible. Deliver strong, clearly spoken speeches that any judge would be able to comprehend. I look for adaptation to changing judges/opponents. Additionally, debaters should actually be listening and taking note of what the opposing side is saying. It is immediately clear when one or both sides are just stating points without acknowledging what the opposing side stated. Pay attention for dropped contentions, weigh the impacts whenever appropriate.

I am a native English speaker

I am a member of Toastmasters International an organization that teaches public speaking skills. Member prepare and deliver speeches, respond to impromptu questions, and give and receive constructive feedback.

I look for logical, well-thought out arguments/positions; well-researched and practiced presentations. I also enjoy speakers who look at and engage the entire audience, use voice inflection and body language.

I'm an independent debate coach in Shenzhen and Huizhou, before that I debated and coached policy in USA at high school and university level. This philosophy is intended for PF tournaments in China and to guide students to do well in general.

Overall, I'm looking for balanced debate performances that emphasize great public speaking, confidence, logical arguments, proficient use of evidence, and persuasive weighing.

In the constructive speech, make sure that the titles and warrants to your contentions are read clearly.

In the rebuttal speech, try to generate offense and don't forget to cross-apply relevant data/warrants from your constructive speech.

In the summary speech, make choices. Don't just summarize the debate. Start with an overview that crystallizes the debate by identifying the key clashes or important issues. Start the weighing process. Why is the clash that you are winning important? Then, move on to the line-by-line. Defend the contentions that you intend to win the debate on by rebutting the opponent's rebuttals. Remember, the final focus is built on the summary speech, so it's worth taking prep time to align with the second speaker's strategy.

In the final focus, crystalize the debate. This would sound something like this: "The benefits of the UMT clearly outweigh the harms because confronting inequality has a far greater impact than a small reduction in business investment; it's also the right thing to do." Then weigh the debate using criteria like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probability, ethics, and turns. Finally, extend some of your key data points or warrants and rebut the most pressing points from your opponent.

In crossfire, have a goal. In the first crossfire, a good goal would be to prove to the judge that a few of the premises of your case are true. e.g. inequality is a serious problem, the exit tax stops capital flight, etc. In the second crossfire, it's a good idea to try to prove that some key elements of the opponent's case are wrong. You can do this by showing a contradiction or disputing facts. In the grand crossfire, it's time to focus on the clashes. Show that you're winning them and which one is most important. In terms of style, I prefer that you let each other answer, that you don't ask too long of questions or answer for too long, and that you don't waste too much time asking for evidence. Write questions before cross-fire starts.

Overall, I'll hold debaters accountable for what's on the flow. If you don't extend something, you won't get credit for it. And, when you extend something, I expect a warrant and impact to come with it. Get in the habit of saying 'because', 'for example', and 'this is important because'.

Have fun, and try to have a growth mindset. I'll give you feedback, and I hope that you approach it with an open-mind. That being said, I do believe that "pull beats push". In other words, you know what you want feedback on and you shouldn't be afraid to ask. Consider asking questions like: "How could I have persuaded you that x = y?" or "Why didn't you find x point important to your decision?". General questions like "How can I improve?" are less effective than specific questions about the debate or your performance.

If you have any further questions that the ballot or post-round discussion didn't answer, feel free to contact me on

WeChat: m123farmer

I am a lay judge and here is what I am looking for.

• Strong original arguments - not a direct repeat of your resource package.
• Quality over quantity (watch your speed)
• Clear, concise, easy to follow
• Crossfire rounds show me if you listened to your opponent
• Convince me with your arguments

Good luck and I look forward to seeing you compete.

I am a judge with lots of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the US. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.

I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

A good debater is one who speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible. I do not like spreading. It is unlikely you will win the debate if you are using this tactic.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

I appreciate presenters who are well prepared, coherent and enthusiastic about their message.

Judging Paradigm:

As a science teacher with a passion for nurturing critical thinking skills, I bring a unique perspective to debate and public speaking competitions. My judging philosophy centers around the importance of logic, facts, and rigorous research. I firmly believe that a well-structured argument supported by solid evidence is the foundation of persuasive communication. While I appreciate effective communication and delivery, my primary focus is on the substance of the arguments presented.

Teaching and Coaching Approach:

My experience as a science teacher has influenced my approach to coaching. I encourage students to challenge conventional norms and explore ideas independently. I appreciate when participants take the initiative to delve into the subject matter, even if their conclusions differ from established knowledge. I emphasize the importance of accuracy by encouraging students to back their arguments with references, citing sources, articles, or quotes.

Expectations for Participants:

Confidence is a valued trait in participants, as it allows them to present their ideas effectively, even when faced with opposing viewpoints. While I respect thorough preparation and research, I also appreciate students who can rely on their general knowledge and logical reasoning to support their positions. It's crucial for participants to strike a balance between passion and tenacity, ensuring that their emotions enhance their arguments rather than detract from them.

Debate or Speech Format Preferences:

I have no specific preferences for debate formats or speech categories. In my view, logic should prevail in any format, and every debate or speech provides an opportunity for valuable learning, particularly through reflecting on losses and improving for the future.

Advice and Guidance for Students:

To succeed in debates and speeches, I advise students to prioritize confidence and logical reasoning. Challenge conventional wisdom and seek to understand complex topics deeply. Embrace the power of research and solid evidence to support your arguments. Remember that learning from your losses is a valuable part of the educational journey in debate.

Hello speakers,

I am Dr. Lanz and certified by NFHS in adjudicating and coaching speech and debate.

EXTEMP: I consider how well the speaker responds to the question, the quality and quantity of evidence you present, and the overall effectiveness of your speaking. I focus on logical analysis, clarity, effective introduction and conclusion, use of support material, use of language, and effective delivery.

IMP: I focus on the creativity of the speaker’s response, the organization and logic of your presentation, and the skillfulness of your overall communication.

OO: I focus on the quality of the speaker’s argument, including your logical connections and your use of evidence. I also look at the effectiveness of the speech’s organization and the flow of the speech. Your overall presentation, including speaking skills, creativity, and audience engagement is important.

Interp: I consider the skillfulness of the speaker’s performance, the creativity of the interpretation, and the overall coherence of the selection.

PF: I enjoy passionate arguments during crossfire. I also enjoy engaging presentations, meaning delivering your speech to the opposing team and the audience instead of just reading off of a script. I appreciate clear communication. Do not speed up.

I have taught courses in presentation skills, debate, public speaking, etc, in my past teaching careers. This is the second time that I've judged this event.

As always, a wise debater would slow down slightly in front of me. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed is okay. But I really do prefer listening to rounds conducted at something more about a natural pace.I don't have a preference as long as they have credible evidence and it applies to the round.

I may need to know about the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for, so make sure it's explained. I'm visible regarding reactions to specific arguments, and it will be obvious if I’m confused about what is going on.

If you're debating policy, try to have some original thoughts. I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

Meanwhile, I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident, or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun.

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

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

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

For different types of speech and debate, I value clear structure, pacing and natural communication.

I am a judge with little bit of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the Indonesia. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.

I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

I have never judged before. I like clarity and concise arguments. I value communication, simple rhetoric and clear explanations.

I am looking forward to being here!

I value effective use of voice, including variations in tone, pitch, and pace. A good speaker should be able to use their voice to emphasize key points and keep the audience engaged.

I am looking for passionate speakers. A passionate speaker is one who believes in their message and conveys it with enthusiasm and conviction. For both Speech Events and PF, I value speeches that reflect genuine emotion and commitment, making the audience feel the speaker's fervor.

For Speech Events: Body language plays a crucial role in communication. I look for confident and purposeful gestures, good posture, and effective use of the space. Eye contact with the audience is also important in establishing a connection. Furthermore, originality and inventiveness are highly appreciated. Whether it’s through unique perspectives, innovative approaches, or imaginative storytelling, creativity can significantly enhance the impact on this judge.

For PF: I embrace the principles of open-mindedness, fairness, and logic. My commitment is to provide an impartial and objective evaluation of participants' performances. I value the exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints, ensuring that every speaker has an equal opportunity to be heard. I prioritize logical reasoning, evidence-based arguments, and effective communication. My role is to uphold the highest standards of fairness and equity in the midst of competitiveness. Please be respectful of each other. I don't want to hear any yelling.

I am new to judging speech and debate, and my background is in biological sciences. I tend to approach judging from a scientific perspective, where the focus is on a logical and evidence based approach. I tend to focus on the following aspects when judging speech and debate:

1. Logic and Reasoning: A strong emphasis on logical thinking and reasoning. Individuals should critically analyze information, identify patterns, and draw sound conclusions based on evidence. Logical reasoning serves as the foundation for constructing reliable arguments and making informed decisions.

2. Integrity and Ethics: Ethical behavior, honesty, and transparency in all aspects of research, decision-making, and problem-solving. Individuals are expected to act with integrity, ensuring that their actions are morally and ethically sound and align with established principles and norms.

3. Research and Evidence-based Approach: The importance of conducting thorough research and basing decisions on empirical evidence, data, and facts. It encourages individuals to engage in systematic inquiries, explore multiple perspectives, and seek a deep understanding of the subject matter before drawing conclusions.

4. Well-reasoned Arguments: In the Individuals are expected to present well-reasoned arguments backed by logical thinking, evidence, and credibility. Emphasis is placed on maintaining consistency in reasoning, avoiding fallacies, and expressing ideas with clarity and coherence.

5. Creative Problem-solving: Recognizes the significance of creativity in addressing complex challenges. It encourages individuals to think outside the box, explore innovative solutions, and leverage their imaginations to develop unique approaches. Creativity is seen as a complementary element to logic and research, helping to uncover novel insights and generate new perspectives

As a judge, I take on the responsibility to judge on what I hear and therefore listen to every individual carefully. I treat candidates with respect and expect the same in return.

I appreciate careful and reasonably paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically. I focus on arguments that are carried forward and focused on by the debaters themselves.

This is my third time judging speech and debate. I am so excited to listen to your speeches. I am looking for solid reasoning and empirical evidence and preparation.

Good explanation is important.

Fast is good when clear.

Analytics are good (most of the time)

Education is a better impact than fairness.

Debate is always educational and almost always good.

Clarity is important. So are impacts. So is being a decent person to everyone in the debate.

Everyone should participate in their cross-ex. If your partner needs help, that can be fine, but they need a chance to do it on their own first.

I’m a stickler about time. If the timer goes off, you need to stop giving the speech.

Be nice! I have no tolerance for rude, disrespectful, and exclusionary behavior. Debate is a game. Play to win but have fun!

I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make it a good one. I am not impressed by teams who copy the latest trends without fundamental knowledge on how to execute those arguments. I like innovative arguments but know your argument and do it well.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

What is your debate background?

I have judged off and on for the last seven years during many NSDA speech and debate tournaments. During my 9 years of teaching in China I have been delighted to judge in around 40 tournaments (online and in person) and see so many talented students.

How do you judge?

I look for sound logic, good research practices and solid arguments. I go with my gut. I listen for style, delivery and overall flow. I look for debaters who deliver the whole package. I look for the debaters or teams who have "done their homework" and know what they are doing. The end result of the overall presentation is what matters to me.

Please explain other specifics about your judging style:

I am not impressed by speed...especially if the speaker begins to trip over their words and lose their focus, flow and grip over their listener. Just be yourself. Don't be what you think we want. Be yourself...everyone else is already taken!

This is my first time judging, and I am really excited! I love watching speech and debate, but you will probably lose me if you use too much speech and debate jargon, as I am new to the scene, though I have taught acting and public speaking. I will be looking for thoughtful, well organized, well constructed speeches and arguments, delivered with passion and expression. I respond well to logic, and despite the fact that I'm American I don't like a lot of yelling and high emotions, but I do like strong projection and a well paced performance-don't be afraid to slow down, take pauses, and engage with the audience! I hate having to choose a winner and loser, but I will strive to give you solid, constructive feedback.

PF

• In my view, the goal of debate is to educate debaters on both the topic area and the practice of debating.
• I come to the debate expecting the debaters to explain not just what their arguments are, but why they matter and, more importantly, why I should vote on them.
• Overall, I will evaluate a debate based on the analysis given in the Final Focus as to why a team should win the round. If that analysis is inconclusive or unpersuasive I will work backward across my flow until I can find an RFD.
• The role of the summary speaker is to summarize. Summary speakers who do 3 minutes of rebuttal will be penalized speaker points.
• I do not flow crossfire. The way I see it, CF is for the debaters to clarify the debate and bring new information to light. Nothing in CF will ever be a voting issue unless it is brought up later in a speech.
• I don't care about dropped arguments unless I'm told a reason why dropping that argument matters.
• Doing evidence check will result in a loss of speaker points. It is a waste of everyone's time. If you missed something, ask about it in crossfire.
• Doing evidence check and not actually analysing the evidence in the following speech will result in an even greater loss of speaker points.
• If the tournament allows, I will give oral feedback in addition to the feedback on the ballot.

This will be my first time participating as a judge. I value communication, clear explanations, and a dynamic debate. Making new arguments against an opponent is more persuasive than just referring to one's own points as it generates new offense on the flow instead of just extending old defense. The same also applies for defense, where one should ideally present reasons as to why an opponent's attack is wrong instead of just insisting that one's own point is correct "just because". You should speak clearly and prioritize logic and reason. For speech, I value a clear voice, sincerity, evidence, expression, and directness.

1. I like lots of quantitative impact with links that are strongly supported

2. I'm generally fine with fast speaking, as long as it is clear and fluent. But any form of spreading is strongly discouraged, I will stop flowing if I cannot hear you clearly.

3. Framework should be clear and justifiable

4. I like logic and reasoning, I don't want to see arguments formed on the basis of pathos

5. Weigh your clashes in summary

6. Do not dominate crossfire, give the opposition a chance to speak or clarify.

7. If there is a lack in evidence, please provide a justified mechanism

Do not bring up any new points for both summary and final focus, and extend your arguments throughout the entire debate. Do not drop your own points!

Final note, please try to use up all your time and be respectful to both the judge and the opponent.

I look for sound logic, good research practices and solid arguments. The speed of delivery is not as important as a clear message.

As a judge with experience in multiple tournaments, including the BASIS International Bilingual Schools China Championship and several other regional events, I am excited to evaluate your speeches and debates. Although my judging experience has primarily been in Public Forums, I have also judged speech events.

Here are some key aspects I will be considering in your rounds:

Speeches:

Content and Organization: A compelling speech should be built upon a well-researched and thoughtfully organized foundation. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points, provide solid evidence and logical reasoning, and effectively structure their speech to maximize impact.

Delivery and Style: The way a speaker delivers their message can be just as important as the message itself. I will assess the speaker's ability to engage the audience through their voice, body language, and overall stage presence. A speaker who can captivate the audience and effectively convey their message is essential to success in speech events.

Originality and Creativity: A genuinely memorable speech often incorporates elements of ingenuity and creativity. I will consider how well the speaker uses unique perspectives, storytelling, and other creative techniques to enhance their message and make it stand out.

Public Forum:

Strength and Clarity of Contentions: A persuasive argument builds on solid, well-defined contentions. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points and provide solid evidence and logical reasoning. The ability to convey one's message convincingly and effectively engage the audience is essential to success in a Public Forum.

Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: Rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos are powerful tools for persuasion and connection with the audience. I will assess the speaker's skill in incorporating these elements into their speech, as they help establish a convincing case and engage the audience on multiple levels.

Respectful Conduct toward Judges and Opponents: Maintaining a respectful demeanor throughout the debate is crucial for fostering a healthy and constructive environment. I will consider how well the speaker demonstrates respect toward their opponents, upholds the principles of fair play, and maintains professionalism. A speaker who engages in respectful behavior shows their ability to engage in civil discourse and understand the importance of maintaining a positive and inclusive atmosphere for the audience.

I look forward to being your judge and hearing your speeches and contentions!

I prioritize speakers who can articulate their ideas clearly and logically. Emotional appeals are less important to me than solid evidence and well-referenced arguments.

Speakers should keep their ideas organized and spread their time evenly between their points and arguments.

As a longtime educator, I am passionate about the opportunities for students to showcase their knowledge. This is my first time officially judging debate; however, I participated in many speech and debate contests while in high school and university. I value when students speak honestly and from the heart. Students should speak clearly, at a pace that is reasonable for the audience, and make appropriate eye contact.

Hi! I'm Mr. Judson, the BISZ Middle School Speech and Debate teacher. I have been a Speech and Debate teacher for the last 5 years, focusing on Asian Parliamentary Debate, and I transitioned to teaching Public Forum Debate this year. As a head coach, I have not officially judged since 2019, but I still observe plenty of rounds.

For competitive fairness, I believe judges need to be a blank slate, thus it is your responsibility to tell me everything. You cannot infer my knowledge about a topic as I will have none, so clearly establishing background information is important.

For content, I value analysis over evidence. In my opinion, data is a tool to support your ideas and explanation. It should not be your main explanation. A good debater does not just throw information at opponents, but rather contextualizes and explains those key facts. Of course, you are not an expert in the field we're debating on, so evidence is still absolutely needed, but you should focus on logically explaining the reasoning and then setting up that evidence to be presented. In addition, I really like clear roadmapping, just a personal preference so I can organize my ballot is all.

Summary speeches should clearly expand arguments first and foremost with rebuttals acting as a secondary. Additional arguments raised in crossfire will be not weighed less unless expanded upon in the summary. On the other hand, I view final focus as a time to build a more emotionally charged impact-based speech.

I prefer to allow students moderate their own timing and interactions, and take more of a passive role in moderating debates. If a student is very rude or disrespectful, then I will step in as needed.

I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. A good debater is also someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.

Conduct

Civil in XF without excessive deference to one another, please.

Impacts

I like to see measurable benefits & harms. Long term considerations are good.

I don't like to see FF impacts suddenly inflated for hyperbolic effect. Keep it real please.

On disclosure

I am against disclosure. I accept and acknowledge that in round it can create better 'clash' however, I think it is toxic for the debate community as a whole. Frequently debaters exchange cards, and the debate system degenerates into a 'this card beats that one' where debaters are presenting rote learned arguments rather than engaging with the actual content of the topic at depth.

Call it a shibboleth of mine, but I do believe that a debate is a clash of ideas - and that this requires debaters to engage with the concepts in round, rather than rely on suggested responses generated by a team outwith. Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.

In any tournament where the rules do not actively require disclosure please take account of the above.

On evidence

Be willing to call for card checks on your opponents. Happy to see debaters offer fair and reasonable scrutiny of your opponents' research. It's part of the game and it is debater's duty to police proper use and application of research.

If the round hinges on a piece of evidence, I may ask to see the card. This is because our activity is based on empirical evidence and to ensure fairness and adherence principles of integrity.

On the nature of public forum

By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading eliminate its utility as a tool for learning how to communicate effectively to the public. The quality of analysis which has gone into a case read at speed simply to 'outrun' your opponent by their not having sufficient time to respond to your contentions is not something I usually find compelling.

1. I am looking for empirical evidence and solid reasoning, will not buy pathos arguments.
2. Links should be logical, clear, and well-supported.
3. I am generally fine with fast speaking but I will stop flowing as soon as you start to spread.
4. I prefer justifiable frameworks that open up the house for discussions.
5. Do not mention new points in the summary or final focus.
6. Will deduct speaker points for extended rebuttal or extended summary.
7. Communicate with your partner, speakers should not contradict each other during the debate.
8. Please remain polite and respectful to your judge and opponents.
9. I have competed in this season, so please do not risk to include any invalid evidence or statements, I will call for a card if any claims seem inauthentic.
10. Refrain from interrupting your opposition during cross.

(Note: please be familiar with the PF structure before the tournament and use up all your time)

I value clear organization of your argumentation, communication, and convincing rhetoric.

I have never judged debate before but I value communication, simple rhetoric, and clear explanations。

Hi guys. Nice to have the chance to work with you. I am sure that we can learn one thing or two from each other. Please take time to make sure that you deliver your wonderful ideas well. Let’s have some fun!

I have never judged debate before but I value communication, simple rhetoric and clear explanations.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hyper-technical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters.

A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner.

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments, and I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument. "Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "noncircumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find.

Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.