Michael Acquah-Baidoo [He/Him]

Student

Email:acquahmichael72@gmail.com

Experience: Debating has been a part of my academic journey from Junior high school through to my undergraduate studies. Four times I have a been a judge, twice in Ghana and twice in China. I have done more of public forums and few novice competitions.

TL;DR: Diligence I learned, designs destiny. So whatever good thing you find yourself doing do it with all diligence and it will payoff no matter how long it takes. Aim for the sky and let the mountain be your falling ground that way, you would still be high above the valleys when you fall. Finally, endeavor to surprise yourself and always remember that good laughter lightens every burden.

Fostering effective communication and critical thinking has always been my paradigm as a judge. My primary goal is to facilitate a fair, educational, and engaging debate environment. In evaluating debates, I adhere to the following principles:

1. Content and Argumentation: While effective delivery is important, the strength of arguments and evidence is paramount. That is why quality is always preferred to quantity.
2. Critical Analysis: A successful debater is one who is able to present arguments and respond effectively to opponents, demonstrating the ability to critically assess and refute opposing claims.
3. Clash and Rebuttal: I value effective clash and rebuttals between opposing arguments. It toughens you up and speeds up your processing rate. It helps to rebuild and reinforce one's own arguments.
4. Respect and Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is crucial. Debaters who adhere to time limits, avoid personal attacks, and foster a positive and constructive debate atmosphere are well appreciated.

I don't mind if you talk fast but you definitely must be heard. I would say 7/10.

Debate is a powerful art. It give you the voice to air your opinions and enriches you with magnanimity. You just need be make up your mind to enjoy every bit of it whether you win or find your yourself on the other side.

As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on fostering a positive and educational environment for all participants. I value respectful and thoughtful discourse, where debaters present their arguments clearly and explain why they believe their arguments should prevail in the debate.

In order to make a compelling argument, I expect debaters to provide a claim supported by relevant data and a warrant. It is important for debaters to cite their sources and be prepared to provide a full citation if requested.

Since debate is a value-based activity, both sides should establish a value and a value criterion. I encourage debaters to not only present these components but also to provide a comprehensive explanation of why and how their position is superior in the debate. While it is essential for the negative debater to present their own position, I believe that direct clash with the affirmative case is more persuasive than presenting negative contentions in isolation.

I prefer debates that prioritize effective communication over speed. It is crucial for debaters to be heard and understood, rather than rushing through their speeches. If you notice that I am having difficulty following your speed, I kindly request that you slow down for better comprehension.

In conclusion, I strive to create a welcoming and inclusive space for all debaters. I believe in the power of respectful dialogue and aim to provide constructive feedback to help participants grow. Let us engage in fruitful and enjoyable debates together.

- Emmanuel Agyekum

Abimbola Susan Ajagun

Email: bimboolisa@gmail.com

I strive to be an objective and fair judge, assessing debates based on the merit of the arguments presented. My goal is to contribute to the educational and intellectual growth of all participants in the debate.

A well-researched argument supported by relevant and credible evidence will always carry weight over the style used. I therefore appreciate debates that are seasoned with substantive, well-reasoned contents. The persuasive power of an argument is increased by effective communication, even when substance is still very important. Debaters ought to talk with confidence, clarity, and a decent cadence.

An adept debater skillfully responds to counterarguments. Rebuttals that are successful combine rebuilding and refutation to show that they have a grasp of the relevant problems. Moreover, cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and challenge.

While I appreciate strategic choices, I caution against rigidity. It's important to be flexible and adapt to the changing game. Adaptability is a valuable skill. Great are debaters who can modify their tactics in response to the points made by their opponents or the direction of the discussion.

This is my first year in debate judging. I deliberate on the overall presentation, how strong the argument is and supported with the facts effectively, how the debate team works, and how everyone has a voice.

I am looking to see your ability to clearly articulate your points, use positive body language, a strong voice, and eye contact. Speakers should work to persuade/inform with confidence. Convince with facts and persuade with information and genuine, clear arguments.

My name is Jeffery Yeboah Asuamah and I am a dedicated language enthusiast, I bring a wealth of experience in evaluating and nurturing English language proficiency. My journey is marked by a deep commitment to fostering effective communication and linguistic finesse.

Key Strenghts:

1. Expertise in Evaluation: With a keen eye for detail and a thorough understanding of language nuances, I specialize in evaluating language proficiency comprehensively, encompassing grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and overall communication skills.
2. Holistic Approach:I believe in a holistic approach to language assessment, recognizing the interconnectedness of language components. This approach ensures a well-rounded evaluation that goes beyond conventional metrics.
3. Personalized Feedback:My commitment to individualized growth sets me apart. I provide constructive and tailored feedback, addressing specific strengths and areas for improvement, empowering learners to excel in their linguistic journey.
4. Cultural Sensitivity:Fluent in the cultural context of language use, I appreciate the importance of cultural nuances in effective communication. This awareness enhances my ability to assess language proficiency in real-world scenarios.

I enjoy debates that are informative and educative, where debaters seem to be enjoying and showing mutual respect. I participated in debates throughout high school and I know what it means to debaters. I definitely prefer arguments with substantive and supporting evidence and not just facts.

Speaking quickly is fine, but it has to be clear enough. Thus, if I can't actually understand what your claim is, I will likely not give that point as much weight. Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn.

Finally, the summary and final submissions made should be properly evaluated, constructed and conveyed in the most persuasive manner as its weight might affect the final judgement.

As a debate and speech judge, my paradigm prioritizes clarity, focus, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who effectively present their team's key arguments while maintaining a clear and coherent delivery. Strategic approaches that enhance the overall impact of the team's case, such as prioritizing core points and avoiding excessive rebuttal, resonate with me. Ultimately, I prioritize the strength of content, clarity of delivery, and strategic thinking when evaluating debate performances.

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.

I am a public speech and debate enthusiast with competing experience as a lay judge. I would like to see

Clear arguments

Strong proofs

Confident speaking

Respectful attitude

I look forward to seeing your wonderful performance!

I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.

As a lay judge, my evaluation criteria prioritize creativity, a strong hook, authenticity, and a cohesive speech. I value speeches that demonstrate originality and innovative thinking. A captivating hook that grabs the audience's attention is essential. I appreciate speakers who bring their authentic selves to the stage, allowing their true personality and passion to shine through. Additionally, I look for speeches that flow smoothly and have a logical progression, ensuring that the ideas are well-connected and the overall message is coherent.

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.

As a Middle School English teacher, I appreciate clarity of thought and calmness of delivery. Don't be afraid to slow down and pause.

I hope all participants have a great time!

Hello!

Debate -

I value clear communication, soundly researched arguments, and a strong sense of professionalism amongst participants. A strong team, for me, will be one that balances advanced public speaking skills with building their arguments. I have a low tolerance for teams to make personal attacks against their opponents during their debates.

Speaking -

I value clear communication (both verbal and non-verbal) and characterization in speech events. Speakers should present themselves with professionalism and be respectful of other competitors if waiting in the same room. Creativity is most appreciated when delivered with clarity in a way that supports the speakers overall impact.

I am excited to hear what you have to share, today. The most proficient speakers have a good and original use of rhetoric, appropriate pacing, and grounded explanations.

I prioritize creating a fair and inclusive debate environment where all participants have the opportunity to express their arguments clearly and persuasively. I value substance over style, emphasizing logical reasoning, evidence, and clash. Debaters should speak clearly, support their arguments with relevant evidence, and engage directly with their opponents' arguments. I expect respectful behavior and adherence to the rules of the format. My role is to impartially assess arguments and provide constructive feedback after the round. I encourage strategic diversity but remind debaters to uphold fairness and respect.

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.

If you talk fast, I will not follow. Be aware, if I can't follow, I can't judge highly. I have judged several times before on an official forum such as this. However, as part of my AP Psychology teachings, I often set debates on contentious issues in psychology as assignments. They are a great way of getting students to see both sides of an argument in a PF setting.

What I look for mostly, is evidence to back up a position. Without evidence, it is merely an opinion. I don't want to hear your opinion, I want to hear how you develop your arguments using reason and logic, backed up with evidence. I am a scientist. I always look for the scientific method to be applied here.

I don't take a side. I am not swayed by an argument. I am won over by evidence, well researched and well used to present your argument. The very same can be said of your rebuttal. A great argument will be always be backed up by a sound knowledge, understanding and appreciation of alternative views, along with anticipation of the evidence that is likely to be presented against your case.

The winner will be the debater who uses their evidence to the best effect.

I am interested in having competitive rounds with students who display the passion of having a great debate and ultimately, I will side my final judgements to the team providing the greatest impact in the debate.

Participants should be ready to justify either with facts or logic as to why they are winning the argument and having the upper stand in the debate.

Offense should be reflected in the first speaker's speech in order to show that they have a foot hold in the debate. These individuals are crucial in the debate as they are the first to set a tone in the debate and present their argument and why they should get the vote.

Defense is a must in the rebuttals and participants should spend more time addressing factual arguments backed by evidence rather than wasting time without showing their evidence.

I am not in favor of a team that cannot argue without evidence when the opposing team asks for evidence check. I am interested in hearing a team that comes with facts, logic and brings their evidence to the table.

Marielle H.E

Masters in Sociology Studies

My approach to working with and among people is rooted in the principles of inclusivity, respect, and fostering an environment where all feel valued. I actively encourage and appreciate diverse perspectives.

The ability to express strong viewpoints with diplomacy and empathy is a skill. A debater should always engage in rigorous argumentation without resorting to disrespectful language or tone.

Awareness of gender dynamics and the impact of arguments on gender-related issues is appreciated.

Clarity in articulating complex ideas is key to persuasive communication

I see debates as learning opportunities. I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills and understanding.

As a second-time judge in a speech tournament, I will:

1. Become familiar with the rules and evaluation criteria.
2. Listen carefully and pay attention to delivery, language usage, and content.
3. Maintain objectivity and impartiality and base my evaluations on speaker's performance.
4. Provide constructive feedback to help speakers improve.
5. Be respectful and encouraging to all speakers, recognizing their efforts and accomplishments.
6. Use the opportunity to learn from other judges and share best practices.
7. Stay engaged and involved throughout the tournament, networking with other judges and organizers.
8. Follow the established procedures and guidelines, ensuring a smooth and successful competition.
9. Actively participate in debriefings and panels to share insights and ideas for improving the tournament.
10. Embrace the experience as a learning opportunity and contribute to making the tournament a success.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

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.

First time judge, long time reader of arguments.

My top priority is to ensure that each side presents a clear and appropriate argument. I will sign my ballot to the team with the argument that is best supported.

I need to be able to hear what is being said clearly. Otherwise evidence presented could be dismissed.

Evidence could come from a variety of sources, but I am looking to ensure that you are using it to actually support your argument.

In your FF, be sure to clearly lay out a summary of why you should win.

This is my first time judging, and I would greatly appreciate it if the contestants could present their speeches and arguments more clearly and at a slower pace.

Please be loud and clear when speaking. Use hand gestures and intonation to keep me engaged. I want to be able to feel your passion, but your emotions should not seem forced. It should come out naturally. The speaker should be confident and well-prepared. Proper use of ethos, logos, and pathos is key. Make sure your contentions are clearly outlined. Make sure your rebuttals clearly address the contentions of your opponent. Make sure to be aggressive but respectful during the crossfires.

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.

Note that i check how well a team understands the resolution and how well you bring it to light.
I pay close attention to a team’s depth of analysis in line with how logical and effective the evidence provided is.
To make sure all points are responded to clearly during a clash.
I will only sign the ballot for the team with the best material in the context of the round.
Please always keep the round educational and non-toxic.
Make sure you do your work properly before the start of the round.

As a judge in debate and speech competitions, my primary goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to participants while evaluating their performance.

I prefer that fewer arguments surpass many weak ones in terms of persuasiveness and should be addressed each at a time.

A framework is an essential roadmap for how the speaker will approach the debate. Without a framework, I might get lost in the details of the debate and lose sight of the big picture, so I consider a framework as an essentialpart of the debate.

Rebuttals should elaborate on each point made by the debaters in their persuasive speeches.

If you want to give evidence mention it from citation details like the author, year, or source.

I expect participants to articulate their ideas in a clear and concise manner, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims.

Oral prompting is acceptable in crossfire and all 4 debaters should participate in Grand Cross.

The debaters are expected to keep the discussion on the resolution's major aspects.

I have no opinion based on critical arguments. Just debate the resolution.

Each debater has an equal ability to prove the validity of his or her side of the resolution as a general principle during arguments.

Be courteous and not bully.

I will also evaluate how well speakers engage with their audience through eye contact, vocal projection, and body language.

Speak clearly using good oral communication skills.

Communicate with your opponents.

During the debate, I will evaluate each speaker based on their individual performance rather than comparing them to other participants.

As a debate judge, my primary goal is to facilitate a fair and intellectually stimulating environment for debaters to present their arguments and engage in critical thinking. I believe in the importance of respectful discourse and encourage debaters to engage in constructive dialogue while maintaining decorum.

I priotize the analysis of content over style, focusing on the quality and substance of the arguements. I expect debaters to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the topic , cire credible sources and use logical claims to support their claims. Time management is also of importance . I expect debaters to adhere to the allocated time.. Fairness and impartiality are fundamental to my judging paradigm. I will assess each debate round independently, without bias or preconcieved notions. I am open to innovative and creative arguements as long as they are supported by evidence .

In conclusion, as a debate judge i will evaluate debaters based on their ability to effectively communicate, present well reasoned arguements and engagement in a thoughtful discourse.

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 come to the debate with a clear slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will effect society.

I really appreciate clarity, thoughtfulness, presentation and style. I have a preference for strong evidence ,data ,and statistics when appropriately applied and explained well.I find myself reading evidence a decent bit to see if explanations match what was read.All arguments are welcomed. I enjoy debaters who understand their arguments and demonstrate it in the round through solid explanations. I appreciate the ability of a speaker to bring focus to a torrent of facts and ideas, identifying the most critical issues and further persuading on those. Respect each other, respect yourselves and make a genuine attempt to communicate .

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.

I approach debates with an open mind, seeking to provide constructive feedback and promote a positive educational experience for all participants. As a judge, I strive to be fair, impartial, and attentive to the arguments presented in each round.

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and effective communication. Debaters need to engage in thoughtful analysis, support their claims with evidence, and demonstrate logical reasoning. I encourage debaters to be respectful, considerate, and inclusive in their interactions with others.

In evaluating rounds, I consider several factors, including (But not limited to):

1. Content: I assess the strength and clarity of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the logical coherence of the presented case.

2. Delivery: I take into account the debaters' speaking skills, including articulation, tone, and the ability to effectively engage with the audience.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: I value debaters' ability to engage with opposing arguments, provide effective rebuttals, and engage in meaningful clashes with their opponents.

4. Strategy: I appreciate strategic decision-making, including the ability to adapt to the debate's flow, utilize time efficiently, and construct persuasive narratives.

5. Etiquette: I expect all participants to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, respect, and professionalism. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language will not be entertained.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debates, and I look forward to a productive and enjoyable tournament.

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.

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

Im a new judge, I kindly request that you speak slowly and clearly.it is essential that you consider the speed at which you speak. Please refrain from speaking too fast, as it may hinder my ability to fully comprehend and process the information being presented. Thank you for your cooperation.

Framework: I place a strong emphasis on the framework, which involves deciding which issues or impacts are most important and instructing debaters on how to weigh them in the round. The main priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis, and effective use of evidence.

Speaker Points: To decide the winner, I look at speaker points based on a debater's presentation style, clarity, and overall performance. Strong communication skills contribute to a more persuasive and engaging performance. Respect for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate.

Clash and Rebuttal: I also look at the clash—direct engagement with the opponent's arguments—and effective rebuttal. Debaters are expected to respond to opposing points and demonstrate why their arguments are superior.

Relevant Evidence: The utilization of relevant evidence and examples to support arguments is vital. I assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team.

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

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.

First time judge, but expectations are:

Vocal control - control and variation of pitch, tempo and intonation.

Presence - eye contact, facial expressions, body language.

Rhetoric - use of appeals and rhetorical devices

Judge Philosophies

Judge’s Name: Latifa Mtawali

As a debate and public speech judge, I will consider the following factors when deciding the best speech or debate:

- What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

1. Substance of Arguments

Strength of evidence: Did the debaters back their claims with facts, statistics, and credible sources?

Logical reasoning: Were the arguments internally consistent and well-structured? Did they avoid fallacies?

Addressing counter-arguments: Did the debaters anticipate and effectively respond to opposing viewpoints?

2. Delivery and Style:

Clarity and conciseness: Were the arguments easy to understand and follow?

Charisma and stage presence: Did the debater hold the audience's attention and project confidence?

Civility and respect: Did the debaters treat each other and opposing viewpoints with respect?

3. Audience and Context:

Debate format: Was it a formal competition with set rules or a more informal discussion?

Audience expectations: What were the audience members hoping to gain from the debate?

Persuasiveness: Did the debater effectively shift the audience's opinion on the issue?

Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

The energy of young debaters is truly inspiring! Witnessing their passion and deep knowledge of these important issues is a privilege. I'm excited to participate and immerse myself in the entire experience.

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.

Debate judging paradigm

Name: Ronald
Age: 26
College: NJUPT
Current Occupation: Phd

1. What types of debate have you participated in before, and how long is your debate career?
   NSDA Judge China (2019-now),
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
   Arguments should be delivered at a moderate pace, with an emphasis on communication. Clarity and structure are more important than speed.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
   Debaters should be respectful towards opponents while presenting their arguments. I prefer to see strategic, confident debating over unnecessary aggression.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

· Clear and well-developed arguments presented in constructive speeches.

· Impact weighing in rebuttals—well-explained and justified arguments win.

· Extending arguments from constructive to rebuttals effectively.

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

Ø Keep your arguments structured and well-connected throughout your speeches.

Ø Ensure to provide voters to address key issues from the constructive speech in rebuttals.

Ø Use key evidence and data where possible to strengthen arguments.

1. How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
   11+
2. How many notes do you take during a debate?
   A. I try to take notes on everything.
   B. I write down the points I think are important.
   C. I take a few notes and focus more on the overall presentation.
3. What is the main job of the summary speech?
   A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.
   B. Highlight the major points of the clash and show how your team won them.
   C. Answer all the attacks on your contentions made by the rebuttal speech.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10:

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision-making? 9

10. How important is framework to your decision-making? 5

11. How important is crossfire in your decision-making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision-making? 10

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 7

14. How fast should students speak? 5 – A moderate to moderately fast pace allows for clarity and better note-taking.

Approach: As a judge, I prioritize evaluating arguments based on their logical strength, evidence, and persuasive impact. I carefully listen to each speaker, assessing their content, delivery, and organization.

Adjudication Criteria: I assess arguments based on their clarity, coherence, and relevance to the topic. I value well-researched positions supported by credible evidence. Effective delivery, including vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact, also influences my evaluation.

Feedback: I provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. I focus on providing specific suggestions to help speakers enhance their argumentation, delivery, and overall performance.

Adaptability: I adapt my judging style to different events and formats, recognizing the unique requirements and expectations of each category.

Impartiality: I approach each round with an unbiased mindset, ensuring a fair assessment of all participants regardless of their background or affiliation

Tinashe Musuka
Debating Experience:
National 2nd Price, at National Schools Debate Championship
2018 3rd Regional best speaker- at Zimbabwe National University Debate Championship
Pre Quarter Finalists at 2020-at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship
National Constitutional Court Schools Debate Tournament-2019 Grand Finalists

Judging Experience:
BASIS INTERNATIONAL PARK LANE HARBOUR 20/4/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL BILLINGUAL CHENGDU 30/3/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL HANGZHOU 9/13/2023 Public Forum

Judging Preference or Judging cateria:
My preference for the outcome of the debate may vary slightly depending on the specific rules and regulations of the tournament or organization and I consider fairness, adherence to debate rules, and overall impact of the arguments presented by each team:
The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)

Clarity and Organization: I evaluate how well debaters communicate their arguments and ideas. Debaters should articulate their points clearly and concisely, using logical organization and effective signposting.

Content and Evidence: I assess the quality and relevance of the arguments presented by debaters. Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence and sources and I also consider the depth of analysis and the ability to respond to opposing arguments.

Clash and Rebuttal: I look for effective clash and rebuttal between debaters. Debaters should engage with the arguments made by their opponents, address their points, and provide counterarguments also i assess the ability to identify flaws in opposing arguments and effectively challenge them.

Use of Crossfire: I evaluate how debaters utilize crossfire, a period of direct questioning between teams. Debaters should ask strategic and relevant questions, respond effectively to their opponents’ questions, and use crossfire to clarify and strengthen their arguments.

Delivery and Style: I also consider the overall speaking style and delivery of debaters. Debaters should speak with confidence, clarity, and appropriate use of gestures and vocal variety and use of fluent English also Debaters should assess the ability to engage the audience and maintain a professional demeanor.

Summary and Final Focus: I assess the ability of debaters to summarize the main arguments and reiterate their team’s position. Debaters should effectively prioritize key points and provide a clear final focus on why their team should win the debates
Location:
Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunication, Jiangsu Province, China

I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.

Good luck to all!

As a creative judge, my paradigm follows an imaginative approach,embarking on a journey where ideas are celebrated, curiosity is fostered, and innovation is the cornerstone. I believe in inspiring an atmosphere that cherishes openness and unrestricted thinking.

My name is Cyprian Ogoti, 40, a journalist from Kenya in Africa. I'm currently a student at Hohai University, Jiangning Campus studying my Masters in Resettlement Science and Management. I'm an aspiring social scientist who will deal with issues on land acquistion, project management , resettlement of project affected persons among other issues.

I have over 10years of experience in debates. I have engaged both varsity and high schools students on debates ranging from current affairs, career choice and my favorite where I a have a bias on is on environmental issues.

I consider fast-talking to be an effective way of conveying alot of information quickly but I value clarity which should remain crucial. It should not hinder or lead to comprehension in communicating.

I fully support aggressiveness in a debate but must be a controlled one. It should be channelled into assertiveness, emphasizing the strength of arguments rather than personal attacks. We are not at war remember, we are only dealing with facts done in a respective way.

I consider the overall strength of arguments with evidence-based and logical reasoning when determing a debate winner. Clear articulation and ability to address counterarguments significantly plays a big role.

I prioritize substance over style. Everyone has the ability to debate remember but I go for debators who are mindful of time management and ensures that a balanced presentation is delivered. Debates must source for credibility and both sides should engage each other aiming at strengthening their urguments. I always adhere to respective discourse.

I value strong, confident speakers who express their opinions coherently and effectively. I expect speakers to defend and articulate arguments and responses with clarity and informatively while respecting and adhering to the values and ethics of debate.

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.

I am new to judging, but I appreciate debate that is founded in cited evidence - even better if you can discuss why your evidence is stronger than the evidence of your opponents.

Be mindful of speed and clarity while speaking. It is perfectly reasonable to speak more quickly than you normally would, but you should prioritize clarity of thought and the logic of your argument over pushing through as much material as possible. Avoid using jargon and present your argument in terms someone unfamiliar with your topic could follow.

Be respectful and kind. Remember that you are debating against ideas, not against an individual.

I have some experience coaching and judging speech and debate, but overall, I would still consider myself a lay judge.

Your professionalism and respect for others is the first thing I'll look at, so please make a good first impression. A well formed argument is useless if people don't want to listen to you because your demeanor and delivery are unsavory.

I value clarity, conciseness, and cohesion in the delivery of ideas. Give me quality over quantity. Two fully developed arguments are far better than five half-baked ones. Bombarding someone with facts as fast as you can isn't convincing, but providing a clearly explained, evidence-based roadmap of your ideas is. To that end, you shouldn't talk so fast that I can barely make out any words yet still say nothing of substance.

Audience engagement is definitely important, and I love a good laugh, but don't waste your time on anecdotes and jokes if they don't directly support your ideas (and if they're not actually funny, haha). Your behavior and mannerisms are also important. Make your voice and gestures engaging but natural... Don't be cringe.

In the end, this experience is meant for you to think critically and practice real-world skills, so learn and have fun!!

I am not new to judging speech and debate, but I am new to this format. I will value well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. While pathos is also crucial in the art of persuasion, I will not enjoy any hints of derision or sarcasm directed at opposing teams during debate rebuttal.

For interpretive events, I will value originality and passion, while clear delivery is also important.

This is my first-time judging debate, but I am passionate about public speaking. I love the area. I value persuasive communication, clarity of reasoning, and confident verbal and nonverbal communication. I am very happy and excited to support you with my feedback. I am looking for an argument/speech with a logical impact.

I have been a debate judge for seven years now and I enjoy it big time. I love a genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences.

Quality, well-explained arguments should take precedence over quantity. Debaters should employ quoted evidence to back up their statements, and relevant evidence should be used to supplement rather than replace arguments. A crucial consideration is clear communication.

The quantity of arguments is less significant than the quality of arguments, just as evidence quantity is less important than evidence quality. As a result, your arguments should have three crucial components: claim, evidence, and warrant.

In addition, I seek a robust theoretical framework that gives justification for duty-based or consequential arguments. The framework discussion should focus on who gives the highest value and criteria rather than who achieves them the best (that should be left for the contention-level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is perfectly permissible if the debate can achieve it more effectively at the contention level.

I don't mind what you run as long as it's clear and sensible. Make no assumptions about my knowledge, since if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. I also consider how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately influence my selection, but it will certainly influence your speaker points.

Good luck and enjoy debating.

As a judge, my primary commitment is to fairness, clarity, and an unbiased evaluation of the arguments presented in the round. I approach debates with an open mind and a dedication to assessing the merits of each team's case based on the provided evidence, logical reasoning, and effective communication. I expect debaters to engage in a fair and respectful exchange of ideas.

Adherence to time limits, proper citation of evidence, and a commitment to sportsmanship are essential. I value well-reasoned and logically structured arguments. Clear contentions, supported by relevant and credible evidence, will carry significant weight in my evaluation. I appreciate depth over breadth, so I encourage debaters to delve into key arguments rather than presenting a multitude of shallow points.

Communication is crucial. Debaters should strive for clarity in articulating their points, using understandable language, and providing clear signposts to guide me through the flow of the debate. A well-organized and easy-to-follow speech is more likely to receive favorable consideration.

While I respect the importance of debate structures and rules, I am open to innovative arguments and unconventional approaches, provided they are well-justified. Creative strategies that challenge conventional thinking can enhance the depth of the debate.

My decision will be based on the overall strength of the arguments, weighing impacts, and the ability to effectively refute opposing positions. I will not inject personal biases into my evaluation and will assess the debate solely on the merits presented in the round.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model –

1. Whatever basis for the decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
2. Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules
3. Debate Decisions are made based on:
4. when debators lay good frameworks and contentions and are able to provide a strong link.
5. strong rebuttal argumental arguments backed with facts, pieces of evidence, and logical reasoning and how quickly debators think on their feet in crossfires and finally,
6. A very good summary of speeches from both teams.

For a speech pool debate: decisions are made firstly by;

1. Delivery style- whether the speaker shows a new delivery style, made eye contact and uses body language and a tone level whether high or low used.
2. Content- the organization of the content from introduction to conclusion, availability of new examples and rhetoric of the speech backed with some shreds of evidence
3. time awareness

In conclusion, a speaker whether public speaking or debating should be very confident and use a good delivery style backed with examples and supports claims with logic or pieces of evidence

I am looking for clear arguments, and evidence that support the argument. Making claims without sources, statistics, or other relevant evidence to support arguments makes it difficult to give teams full marks.

Hi debaters,

As I noticed majorly I will be judging Impromptu and PuFo, so my Paradigm is basically for them.

I'm a Middle School Dean, and I prefer discipline in the room. Please be respectful while you are speaking/preparing for your speech.

You do not need to change your style of speaking for me (speed, accent, rhythm…), if I missed anything, I would reach out and ask for it. But as English is not my first language, I do prefer debaters that speak with high clarity and mid-level speed.

Don’t use too much technical stuff, if you do, explain it in short. Otherwise, the argument will be lost on me.

Be nice to your opponents. There’s a difference between being aggressive in crossfire and being mean, don’t be mean. Please let your opponent complete their thought in crossfire before interrupting.

I value heavily when debaters telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things.

Wish you all have a great experience in BISZ!

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.

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.

I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.

I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]

a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

(new paradigm) Alvin Zablon Stanley

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

PF Debater (2014-2022)

NHSDLC, WSDA ,Toc , Basis, Zolo , Dialogue Judge(2022-now)

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

As long as you can express your argument clearly, I don’t care whether you talk fast or not. In my case, the speed of speech does not affect the debater's score, but the accuracy of the message does.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

I like to see the debaters be aggressive as long as they respect the opponent and don't affect their game.

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

Argument Strength: Are the debater's arguments logical, well-supported, and convincing? Do they effectively address counterarguments?

Evidence: Is the debater using credible sources and facts to back up their claims?

Organization and Clarity: Is the debater's argument easy to follow? Are their points clearly laid out and well-connected?

Rebuttal: How effectively does the debater challenge and refute their opponent's arguments?

Adherence to Topic: Is the debater staying focused on the resolution and addressing all its key aspects?

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

1)Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate, even when strongly disagreeing with your opponent.

2) Directly address your opponent's points and engage with their argument. Simply presenting your case without refuting theirs is not enough.

6. How many public forums debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

B. 6-10

C. 11+

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

A. I try to take notes on everything.

B. I write down the points I think are important.

C. I take few notes and focus more on the overall presentation.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

B. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

C. Answer all the attacks on your contentions made by the rebuttal speech.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making?9

10. How important is framework to your decision making?7

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?10

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?7

14. How fast should students speak?5– moderate pace will help when it comes to noting key points rather than the idea that a debater should finish all their points when they are not clear.

This is my first time judging speech or debate, but I do know what I value in an argument. Arguments must be clearly communicated in a way for other students and judges to understand. I also value quality and depth rather than a long list of shallower arguments. Arguments shall be judged without bias and purely on their strength, clarity, and quality.

I find enjoyment in well-prepared and confident presentations.

Be reminded to provide sufficient and relevant evidence to help back up your argument. Refute arguments politely, without belittling another opponent no matter their style, ethnicity, race or appearance.

Give one another time to speak without interruption. Please keep track of time. I'm positive you will do your best! Good luck.

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.

• Stephanie Tsagli, I am highly respected debater and judge known for exceptional skills, ethical values, and commitment to fostering meaningful discourse.
• My paradigm is characterized by intellectual prowess, fairness, open-mindedness, and dedication to promoting constructive dialogue. -
• I continuously learn and grow to enhance my intellectual capabilities. -
• I treat all debaters with respect, values diverse perspectives, and ensures equitable consideration of every viewpoint. -
• Stephanie cultivates an environment that nurtures intellectual growth by embracing open-mindedness and encouraging exploration of diverse viewpoints.
• I serve as a mentor, offering constructive criticism and guidance to enhance debaters' skills and arguments. -
• I uphold ethical values and integrity, emphasizing the importance of truth, evidence, and ethical considerations in arguments.
• I extend my influence beyond the debate arena by shaping the next generation of debaters through imparting values, knowledge, and experience.

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.

As a judge, I prioritize logical and well-structured arguments that are supported by up-to-date and relevant evidence. I value speakers and debaters who can effectively persuade the audience through compelling reasoning, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of the topic. Additionally, I appreciate presentations that are engaging and entertaining, as I believe that effective communication should captivate the audience. I encourage competitors to be creative in their approach while maintaining a focus on delivering persuasive, well-supported arguments, and demonstrating strong critical thinking skills.

Leo Wu

I expect your speech & debate to be logic, informative and thoughtful.

Support yourself with evidence as well as thinking and deduction.

Use skills as you can. Best contents need to be coupled with best skills.

Good luck.

My name is Xin, and I’m honored to serve as a judge for today’s speech and debate competition.

I have a background in education, which has equipped me with a deep appreciation for the art of argumentation and effective communication. Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure of mention any relevant experience, which has reinforced my belief in the power of persuasive speech and critical thinking.As a judge, my goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps you grow as speakers and debaters. I value clarity, organization, and passion in presentations, and I’m excited to see how each of you brings your unique perspectives to the topics at hand.

I look forward to witnessing your hard work and creativity today. Good luck to all participants!

Hello, my name is Chen Yi and I used to practice policy debate in college. In a debate, I pay special attention to:

1. the originality of the argument, framework
2. the ability to listen to voices from the other side

Being able to understand their points of view and respond to questions are crucial for being a respectful and capable debater.

Feel free to present evidence, including direct quotes, but make sure not to make the quote too long and the evidence needs to be followed by your sound analysis. Pick the most essential ones to leave an impression in my mind.

The selection of the most relevant quotes also demonstrates the level of your understanding of different arguments. Besides, mentioning the author and source title can be helpful for me to do fact check if needed.

I also value team collaboration throughout the debate. If you and your teammate know how to play different roles and use your strength to help each other answer tough questions, and build a strong case together, I will take this into consideration when it comes to the moment of signing my ballet.

Enjoy the process and learn something new every time. Prepare, present, persuade!

During the Speech & Debate, I valued effective communication which means no rush, clear speech structure and explanations with evidence.

I value well-structured arguments that directly address the resolution. I prefer debaters who speak clearly and confidently, and who engage with their opponents' arguments respectfully. I appreciate the use of real-world examples and current events to support arguments. I am open to various debate styles, but I expect debaters to maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. I am open to speed in delivery as long as it enhances the overall quality of the debate. Overall, I prioritize persuasive and impactful communication in evaluating debate rounds.

Cherry Zhao

I care most about the round being educational and respectful. Ultimately, I am going to sign my ballot for the team with the great effort, teamwork and debating skills.

I think the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language, resources and evidence.

I consider content, style, and strategy when evaluating the debate.

I look for participants who are well prepared, confident in expressing themselves and respectful of their opponents.

I value the proper speed of speech, so please be careful to use the proper speed. Your top priority as a debater should be to make sure that you're speaking coherently so your judge understands what you're saying. Please avoid reading to the screen all the time without lifting head a bit.

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.