lt is crucial for debaters to present their arguments in a clear and logical manner, following a chronological outline. To effectively persuade me and increase the chances of winning the debate, it is essential to support these arguments with concrete evidence. This evidence can be in the form of facts, statistics, expert opinions, or real-life examples, which add credibility and strength to your position.

Furthermore, a successful debater must not only present their arguments but also skillfully defend them against potential challenges from the opposing team. It is important to address and counter the assertions made by the opposition, as failing to do so may imply agreement or weaken your position.

Throughout the debate, it is crucial to maintain a civil and respectful tone. Engaging in a respectful manner fosters a healthy and constructive environment for discussion, allowing for a more productive exchange of ideas. By adhering to these principles, debaters can enhance their chances of success and effectively convey their viewpoints to the audience. Thank you.

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.

In the realm of debate judging, I believe in fostering an environment where the pursuit of truth and the art of persuasive communication converge. A debate judge should embody the principles of intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, and a commitment to fairness.

First and foremost, the judge should approach each debate with a thirst for knowledge and a genuine curiosity about the arguments presented. A commitment to understanding the nuances of each position allows for a more informed and impartial assessment.

Open-mindedness is the cornerstone of a good debate judge. It involves a willingness to entertain diverse perspectives and ideas, regardless of personal beliefs. A judge must resist the temptation to let personal biases color their evaluation and remain receptive to compelling arguments, even if they challenge preconceived notions.

Fairness is paramount. A debate judge must ensure that each debater has an equal opportunity to present their case and be heard. Fairness extends beyond procedural matters to encompass the evaluation of evidence, the consideration of rebuttals, and the overall balance of the debate.

Objectivity is the lodestar of a debate judge's paradigm. Assessing arguments based on their merits rather than personal preferences ensures an equitable and just outcome. This requires a deliberate effort to separate one's own opinions from the evaluation process.

Finally, constructive feedback is a vital aspect of the judging paradigm. A good judge not only renders a decision but also provides debaters with valuable insights into their performance. This feedback serves as a catalyst for improvement, nurturing the growth of effective communicators and critical thinkers.

In essence, a debate judge should be an embodiment of intellectual integrity, open-mindedness, fairness, objectivity, and a catalyst for growth. It is through the application of these principles that the art of debate can flourish as a vehicle for intellectual exploration and enlightenment.

This is my paradigm

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.

NAME: BARAKA PRINCE

Age:19 years

I have participated in several debates before and I have an experience of a year as at now. I am good at fast talking provided the debaters are audible, maintain clarity on their points and make sure that their speed does not affect the quality of the argument they present. I usually determine the winner of a debate according to the ability of the teams to defend their argument with amble evidence, logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness.

I am currently not affiliated with any debates for my current school (BASIS Chengdu); however, I did take part in supporting starting debate groups with the World Scholar’s Cup in previous schools (QSI Shenzhen) with students new to debating skills. I did not compete in debate groups in school outside of debate activities in courses I took.

I have not judged a policy debate in the past. I think that during debates, if you can clearly speak, express your ideas in an organized manner, and stick to the topic, you are on your way to presenting a good debate. Being able to work in cited sources to support your topics, as well as being able to argue counter topics while debating would be higher level in my mind, but I work a lot with second language learners. This is what I aspire to see when I watch a debate. not just your ideas and your why, but how do those ideas connect with the world around you, and the evidence you find to support your topic.

When thinking about arguments and style, I think it’s important to have solid argument points, but that being able to add your own style to debating is as equally important. You want to be able to draw the listener in, convince them to your way of thinking, and really make an impact on what they remember about you and your topic. Don’t bore me, and don’t make things up as you go along, Be prepared as best you can be, and use the information you have in a way that convinces me you’re the expert in what you’re sharing.

BERWA KEZIAH

Age:21 years

College: Beijing Institute of Technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 3 years

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks.

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

According to the team's ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation, logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness, how well can debaters respond to their opponents' arguments and counterpoints.

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

Be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence.

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

A. 0-5

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

A.I try to note everything.

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

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

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? 8

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

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?8

14. How fast should students speak?7

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.

Judge’s Name: BRIAN BWANYA

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
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.
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?
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?
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)?
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)
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
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?
Well I take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with logic and in depth analysis, persuasiveness and clarity arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
It’s important for me to see clear and concise arguments presented by both sides. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language. Not only that, use tangible evidence to support your claims and it should be recent, relevant and accurate. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

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

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.

1. Debate career?

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

2. Fast-talking?

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

3. Aggressiveness?

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

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

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

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

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

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

Hi, I'm Favour. I was involved in debates during high school and have experience as a competitor and a judge.

My judging philosophy has no external influence but mainly relies on the the content, approach and delivery of the debater. I believe in evaluating debates based on the quality of arguments, evidence and speaker performance. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and engagement with the topic. I strive to be fair, impartial, and open-minded in my evaluation of debates.

my preferences and expectations are quite simple:
I prefer debaters to focus on quality over quantity of arguments. I appreciate well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. I am open to a variety of debate styles and strategies, as long as they are presented effectively and persuasively. Your ability to deliver and get your points across proficiently is highly important. A debate that is well articulated and clear is highly regarded as it allows the debater to carry the listeners along. Also, It is important to counter statements made by the oppositions in a respectful manner or it might imply some sort of agreement with opposition. Countering assertions should be done with strong points will help to win.

I provide detailed feedback to debaters on their performance, including strengths and areas for improvement. I aim to offer constructive criticism that can help debaters grow and develop their skills. I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek clarification on my feedback. I expect debaters to be respectful towards each other, the judge, and the audience. I expect debaters to be well-prepared, engage with the topic, and follow the rules of the debate format. I appreciate debaters who are willing to listen to feedback and learn from their experiences. In conclusion, I am committed to providing fair, impartial, and constructive judging in all debates.

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.

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.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

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.

As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.

Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.

I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
6. BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
7. WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
8. WSD online (October 2023)
9. WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
10. Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
11. BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
12. General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
13. TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
14. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
15. TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
16. TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
17. NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
18. TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
19. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 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)

It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.

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?

A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.

Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.

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

A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. 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

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.

1. Judge’s Name

NAME: ASHWIN

GENDER: MALE

INSTITUTION: NANJING UNIVERSITY

AGE: 24

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 (front lining)? (a)

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)

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?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well-argued out logical responses. I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed. In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.
Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

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

Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don't second guess your argument, if you do let it be inside don't show it

Tina Kileo

Age: 25yrs

College: Chifeng University

Current occupancy : Student in University

Hello I am generally experienced to judging so generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence. I have participated in more than five tournaments so far and got an opportunity to judge different kinds of speech including Extemporaneous speech, Impromptu speech, oral interpretation and original oratory speech.

Im okay with high speed when it comes to delivering a speech. But I’d say that if you do speed then please be clear in pronunciation. Also don’t use speed as a weapon not to elaborate the point clearly. That is the worst and the speaker points will reflect on that.

Aggressiveness is not a problem to me but it depends on an extent to which it reaches. I will evaluate and listen to every argument in the debate (unless it is overly racist, sexist, homophonic, transphobic etc) so as objectively as possible you do you in a respectful manner.

To determine a winner of the debate; I like arguments that are supported by evidence. However I evaluate the round based on arguments under whichever framework is best defended (including warranting that framework) Just winning framework doesn’t win the round. I need to see offensive arguments generated under a framework. I struggle to evaluate non-topical or extra-topical arguments and I’m much happier to vote for arguments that clearly link back to advocating one side of the resolution.

I care most about the round being educational and safe. I’m open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

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.

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.

Approach:
As a judge, my priority lies in assessing arguments based on their logical coherence, the strength of the evidence presented, and their persuasive influence. I meticulously evaluate each speaker, considering not only the content of their arguments but also their delivery and organization.

Adjudication Criteria:
I evaluate arguments based on their clarity and relevance to the topic at hand. I prioritize well-researched positions backed by credible evidence. Additionally, the effectiveness of delivery, gestures, and eye contact play a crucial role in my evaluation.

Feedback:
I offer constructive criticism to participants, pinpointing their strengths and areas where they need development. My emphasis lies in providing precise recommendations to assist speakers in refining their arguments, delivery, and overall presentation.

Impartiality: I approach every round impartially, ensuring an equitable evaluation of all participants, irrespective of their background or affiliation.

Adaptability:
I tailor my judging approach to various events and formats, acknowledging the distinct demands and standards of each category.

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.

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

NAME :MAGUNDA TAROPAFADZWA

FRAMEWORK

l prioritize framework, which involves deciding which issues are of paramount importance. The fundamental priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis and effective use of evidence.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE WINNER

-To decide the winner, I will assess the clarity and strength of the arguments presented by each team. The team which has strong communication skills has a more persuasive and engaging performance. Also, respect and decorum for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate, despite the arguments.

-I also consider how well the debators present their arguments. The arguments should be clear, well-structured and organized so as to make it easier for judges and audience to follow the debate.

One of the pivotal things is to assess whether arguments presented by each team ia relevant to the topic of the debate. Deviation from the topic of debate lessens the team's chance to win.

-A winning team should should engage with strongest arguments presented by the opposition team and effectively refute them.

The use of relevant evidence and examples to support argument is very vital. I also assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name:MAGUNDA TAROPAFADZWA

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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.

2. Tell us about your debating experience.

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.

3. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

4. How much do you know about the topic?

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.

5. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

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)

6. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

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)

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

The outcome of a debate depends on various factors, such as the strength of arguments presented, the persuasiveness and clarity of communication, the ability to address counterarguments effectively, and the audience's subjective interpretation and judgment.In assessing a debate,I consider factors such as logical reasoning, evidence-based arguments, coherence of ideas, ability to rebut opposing viewpoints, presentation skills (such as clarity and organization), use of rhetoric or persuasive techniques, and adherence to debate rules or guidelines.Ultimately, determining the winner of a debate is subjective and can vary depending on perspectives and interpretations. It's important to note that debates are not necessarily about finding an absolute "winner" but rather about promoting dialogue, exchanging ideas, challenging assumptions,and arriving at a better understanding of complex issues.

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

Active listening: I carefully listen to the debators arguments and l consider each point made before reaching a decision. Active listening involves paying attention to both content and delivery, as well as asking clarifying questions if necessary.

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.

Greetings and welcome to my judging paradigm. 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.

As a previous participator in debate at a young age to coming of age to be a judge, below are my expectations from the contestant.

I appreciate well-structured arguments, logical reasoning, and evidence-based claims. While I enjoy innovative strategies, they must be grounded in solid debate fundamentals.

I prefer substance over style, so prioritize depth of analysis over speed, provide clear framework for the round. If you're running a specific theory or kritik, make sure to explain its relevance to the round. I appreciate when debaters engage in clash and clearly weigh impacts.

Quality over quantity. I value well-researched, credible evidence. Make sure your evidence is recent and relevant to the resolution. Misrepresentation of evidence will negatively impact your speaker points.

Engage with your opponent's arguments. I want to see clash and effective rebuttals. Address the key points of contention and explain why your case is superior. If you extend arguments, ensure they are impact full land weigh them against your opponent's case.

I assign speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, and effective cross-examination. Be respectful to your opponent and avoid unnecessary aggression. I reward creativity and strategic thinking.

While I have my preferences, I am open to different debating styles. Adapt to the round and your opponent. If you have unique arguments or strategies, explain them clearly.

I am open to non-traditional arguments, but they must be well-explained and justified. Help me understand the relevance of these arguments to the resolution.

Debate is a learning experience. Enjoy the round, be respectful, and take constructive feedback to improve. I am here to fairly evaluate the arguments presented and provide feedback for growth.

Wish you all best of luck.

Hi there ;),

Nice to meet you!

We are all here to learn and have fun, so let your submissions be educative, informative, and, most importantly, without using "strong and or bad" language. Let's try to have a fun but educative and safe round. Be nice!

Be precise in your submissions and do ensure effective communication. Be audible and clear enough to be heard and understood. And also provide excellent reasoning backed by substantial and specific evidence. Speed is okay; you must, however, be understood to progress.

For me, a well-developed argument is always more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Every speech matters. And it's all about fair play. Build strong arguments and stay in the allotted time. Do extend your arguments, and don't lie in FF.

It's okay to ask for evidence, but make sure you use it. Expatiate on it, so I get it from your perspective. We all don't think alike.

Do not orally prompt your partner or distract them. You can always wait to get your message across later. Patience is key.

NB: The focus should be on learning. Do not focus on attacking or disrespecting a person's flaw or style. Respect is paramount! Be graceful, be nice! Be Confident!

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.

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

I have participated in Public Forum (PF); Original Oratory (OO); Extemporary Speeches; Impromptu Speeches; Public Speaking tournaments since 2022 to date .

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking is fine, but it becomes a problem when speakers talk so fast that their points can't be heard. It's important to find a balance between speaking quickly and being understandable, so that as a judge I can follow and understand what's being said. Speaking too fast shouldn't make the message hard to understand. By focusing on clarity and getting the main points across, speakers can have a strong impact, even if they don't cover everything in depth.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I think aggressiveness in debates hinders productivity and discourages open dialogue. Debates should be respectful and focus on the substance of arguments rather than personal attacks. I believe constructive and respectful exchanges lead to a more meaningful debate experience.

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

I decide who wins the debate by looking at how well a team presents their arguments and counters their opponents. I pay attention to the strength of their points and how they respond to the other side's arguments.I enter a debate with a blank mind, setting aside my prior knowledge and personal opinions. My judgment is solely based on the arguments and information presented by the debaters.

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

Take the time to thoroughly analyze and counter your opponents' arguments. Point out anyfallacies or weaknesses in their reasoning.

6. How many public forum 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.

In terms of my decision-making as a debate judge, defining the topic holds a moderate level of importance to me. I prefer a standard definition while still allowing for additional clarifications if they enhance the understanding of the topic.
As for the framework, It should provide a reliable structure that allows me to trace back the decision-making process to that framework.
In terms of crossfire, Its a valuable tool for, checking points’ weight, and determining which contentions hold stronger ground when they clash.

Weighing- I appreciate the ability to compare, contrast, and address opponents' points while effectively demonstrating why one's own arguments are more significant.

While persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication are encouraged, I do not heavily weigh them in my decision-making process.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Tag and card is fine, website link or hard copy all ok

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

I respect time management so l accept fast talking as long as the speaker is audible.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

It’s not necessary for a win …. Everything should be done in moderation showing respect for every debater.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
l consider all the facts given then compare the facts to the evidence provided .

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Debates should flow smoothly with the highest level of professionalism

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

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

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

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

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

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

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

A. 0-5

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

A. I try to take notes on everything.

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

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

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 frame work to your decision making? 8

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

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 8

14. How fast should students speak? 7

Hi, my name is Tinashe Musuka .I'm currently pursuing a degree in Business Administration at

Nanjing University. In high school, I was an active debater and had the privilege of representing my

school at both the national and provincial levels from 2018 to 2020. I participated in numerous high

school debates in Zimbabwe, such as ZNDT. Now, I serve as a professional judge, having adjudicated

over 20 debates and received several certificates for my contributions. I've had the honor of judging

finals for prestigious debates here in China, including TOC, NHSDLC, and BASIS International. You can

also find references to my judging experience on my tabroom profile. How I usually determine the winner of the debate

When it comes to determining the winner of a debate, I take into account several factors. These

include the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, along with well-argued, logical responses. I don't

entertain new arguments in the summary speech; any additional information won't earn extra points.

Instead, the goal is to consolidate the main points of conflict in the round, fostering a better

understanding of the discussed issues.

In general, the debater who can offer the strongest, most well-supported argument, while effectively

rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to prevail. The outcome hinges on the number of clash

points won by both sides. In the event of a tie, I'll focus on the point that received extensive

discussion throughout the debate, considering it the most critical clash point. Therefore, the side that

prevails on the most crucial points typically wins the debate. Ultimately, the aim of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with

the winner being the one who best accomplishes that objective. How I consider fast-talking

When the speaker is speaking at times they are stumbling over their words or stuttering at certain

points during the debate. The speed of speaking is very rapid when compared to everyday

communication with people. However its not a problem to listen to fast talking, its understandable

but as a judge it affects the effective of the note taking and documentation process

How I consider aggressiveness

When the opponents interrupts the speaker to push them to answer the question in a manner that

they want in order to discredit the point. Additional notes I would like to share with debaters

Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don't second guess your, argument if you do let it be inside don’t show it.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

e.

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

a.

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

c

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

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

b

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

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

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

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

1). In my opinion the goal of a framework is to to frame your case such that your impacts are relevant, and your opponents do not. It can be used to weigh the value of impacts in the beginning of the round, and to set a burden of proof on the other team.

2). In a debate I focus on the arguments, evidence, the impact of the arguments as compared to that of the opponent, I also focus on the solvents.

For a speech i focus on whether the student has understood the topic and how important it is, how people can relate to it and also the originality within the speech it self, these are some of the criterias I use to judge a speech.

3). A good ballot to me comprise of a minimum of three contentions like for example, the weight of the impact in the topics discussed, evidence with good factual data on the topic, intriguing crossfires, the summary that stays within the boundaries of the topic not new arguments. These as well are the criterias I mainly focus on when judging a debate

NGALULA JOJO

AGE:23

COLLEGE:NANJING UNIVERSITY OF POST AND TELECOMMUNICATION

CURRENT OCCUPANCY:STUDENT

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

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

2. How do you consider fast talking?

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

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

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

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

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

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

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

I have experience judging NHDLC and NSDA tournaments in the past few months for PF, Novice, and Middle school online and offline competitions.

In my experience, I consider fast talking as not a very effective manner of conveying your argument. I want to follow your chain of arguments. Therefore, I appreciate it more when the debaters convey their arguments in a moderate-paced manner. Otherwise, I will miss out on important details.

In some cases, aggressiveness is helpful, especially in arguments where the debaters try to make their opponents understand their point of view. However, I prefer it when the debaters are professional and respectful. You can still present an effective debate when calm and firm. Employ convincing skills and evidence-based and impactful arguments. Impoliteness, insults, and personal attacks will not be entertained.

To determine the winner, I consider the overall structure of the debate. I follow the complete chain of main arguments. I then assess the strength of each argument, the quality of evidence, the logic of the reasoning, and the relevance of the points made. I look for clear impacts and explanations of why certain arguments matter more than others.

I don’t admit new arguments in the summary and final focus. Any new arguments introduced in the summary do not earn any points. Debaters should focus on strengthening their main arguments. They should explain why their arguments are more important or carry greater weight in the round. I also consider the clarity and persuasiveness of each debater's presentation. Effective refutation and addressing opposing points are also crucial for a strong case.

Every debate is different and based on my evaluation of the arguments, impacts, and overall performance, I decide on which side presented the stronger case and deserves to win the debate.

In case of any questions, I encourage debaters to seek clarification.

As a judge, my theoretical framework focuses on clarity, fluidity, and audience engagement. I value well-presented arguments with substantial evidence that is accessible to everyone. I appreciate eloquence and encourage debaters to respect the decorum of the competition. Debaters should always be mindful of time management, ensuring an outstanding delivery of constructive and rebuttal arguments. During crossfire, the focus should be more on what opponents presented, rather than anything else. Above all, I aim to reward teams with good organization and presentation.

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.

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

Effective communication involves clarity, persuasion, and respect for opposing viewpoints. My goal as a judge is to evaluate the skills and arguments presented fairly, considering both content and delivery. I appreciate articulate, well-organized speeches or debates. A clear introduction, logical progression, and a firm conclusion are essential. Additionally, I value creativity and adaptability in adapting to the given format and topic. I am looking for well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Solid and clear impacts and the ability to weigh arguments are crucial. Articulate and clear communication is crucial. Speak at a reasonable pace and enunciate. Maintain eye contact and exhibit passion for your arguments. Captivate the audience. The ability to effectively refute an opponent's points is a significant factor in my evaluation. I encourage debaters/speakers to be mindful of their opponents' positions, to engage respectfully, and to focus on the key arguments. I appreciate innovation and creativity but ultimately reward effective argumentation.

Remember, have fun, and make this a valuable learning experience!

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!

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.

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

Background: As a PF debate judge, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, clarity, and effective communication. I value depth of analysis and strategic use of evidence. I encourage debaters to engage in clash, respond to opponents' arguments, and communicate with a broad audience.

Expectations:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Support your arguments with relevant evidence, but don't forget to analyze and explain the implications. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence.

3. Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.

4. Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

5. Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.

6. Flexibility: Adapt to the flow of the round. Flexibility in strategy and argumentation is appreciated.

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an OO judge, I am looking for compelling storytelling, effective use of rhetoric, and a speaker who can captivate the audience. I appreciate creativity, passion, and a clear message.

Expectations:

1. Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.

2. Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.

3. Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.

4. Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.

5. Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.

6. Timing: Respect the time limits. Practice to ensure that your speech fits within the allocated time.

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an Impromptu judge, I value adaptability, quick thinking, and effective communication. I understand the constraints of the format and appreciate speakers who can navigate them successfully.

Expectations:

1. Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.

2. Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.

3. Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.

4. Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.

5. Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.

6. Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.

 

Debaters should chronologically outline their arguments and concreate evidence is a must for you to win the debate.

In addition, the debater must effectively defend their arguments as well as counter the assertions of the opposing team, failure to do so insinuates that they are correct and you agree.

Above all, everything should be done in a civil manner. 

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.

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.

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

Judge philosophies

1. judge’s name: Moirah Sithole

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

• TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

• I regularly read news about this topic. It's an interest of mine

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

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

1. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

• It's somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

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

The following are the factors that goes into to my decision as to who wins the debate:

1. Content and Argumentation: l assess the strength of each team's arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented during the debate. This includes the clarity of the arguments, the relevance of the evidence cited, and the logic of the reasoning.

2. Clash and Rebuttal: l then evaluate how well each team engages with and responds to the arguments made by the opposing team. Effective rebuttals that address the key points raised by the other side and highlight weaknesses in their arguments are important.

3. Organization and Structure: l also look at how well each team organizes their case, presents their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, and provides a clear roadmap for the debate.

4. Delivery and Presentation: l consider the speaking skills of the debaters, including their clarity, confidence, and ability to effectively communicate their arguments to the audience.

5. Crossfire Performance: l sometimes also take into account how well debaters perform during the crossfire, where they engage in direct questioning and answering with the opposing team.

6. Impact and Weighing: l further assess the overall impact of each team's arguments and weigh the significance of the impacts presented. Debaters are expected to explain why their arguments are more important or have a greater impact than those of the opposing team.

7. Use of Evidence: l also evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented by each team to support their arguments. Debaters who use credible and well-supported evidence are often viewed more favorably.

8. Clarity of Final Focus: The final focus speeches are crucial in summarizing the key arguments and impacts of the debate. I pay attention to how well debaters crystallize their arguments and make a compelling case for why they should win.

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

Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .

As a newly certified judge with experience in four tournaments, I am eager to assess your speeches and debates. Here are some crucial aspects to consider in your rounds:

Communication: Articulate your points and contentions clearly, facilitating an easier understanding of your argumentation. Incorporate effective delivery techniques, including pacing, pausing, intonation, and humor, to enhance clarity and keep your audience engaged throughout the presentation.

Respect and Fairness: Maintain a respectful and constructive atmosphere during the debate. Respectful communication is pivotal for a productive and fair competition. Expect impartial evaluation, where each argument is assessed on its merits. Avoid unfair tactics or personal attacks.

Structure and Ideas: Effectively organize your arguments and ideas, considering factors like evidence and rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos. Utilizing these appeals enhances the depth and persuasiveness of your arguments.

Time Management: Adhere to time limits and manage your speaking time efficiently. I will also encourage you to keep track of your own time.

Let's make this a great experience together. I'm excited about the fantastic competition and wish you all the best!

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

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.

• 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 have experience judging PF debates both online and offline with NHSDLC over the past several months. When it comes to speaking speed, I find that a moderate pace is preferable for clear communication and easy understanding.

In terms of aggressiveness, it can be effective if done respectfully. Maintaining a professional tone is crucial, and personal attacks or disruptive gestures are never acceptable.

To determine the winner, I focus on the coherence and accuracy of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery. I don't entertain new arguments in the summary speech, emphasizing the consolidation of main points. The winner is typically the debater with the strongest, well-supported arguments and effective rebuttals. The goal is a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with the winner being the one who best achieves that objective.

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.

Hi! I am Edric. I debated PF in TOC China and BASIS tournaments for around 5 years and am champion in numerous BASIS tournaments and a two-time national finalist in TOC China. Currently, I am a freshman in BASIS International School Shenzhen.

I consider myself a flow judge. That being said, I can adapt to the panel I am on for you, meaning that if you have me as your judge with two other lay judges on a panel of three, you can ask me to judge like a lay. In that case, it's also perfectly fine to kick me and go for the two lay ballots. Essentially, my judging preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds (in prelims I won't accommodate because I am the only judge).

My email (use this for chains): edric.wangzrbisz@gmail.com

Important Things:

Weighing is the most important thing in the debate and the first place I look to evaluate. There must be weighing in the final focus. I will sign my ballot for the team with the strongest link into the best weighed impact. In weighing, I prefer reasonability/probability over magnitude/scope over timeframe. I can consider ethics in the impact calculus, but be sure to explain to me how an ethical impact matters in the round as it is a lot more abstract than the typical quantitative impacts (i.e. democracy v. economic cost). I love narratives when weighing. A good narrative can translate into really high speaker points.

Arguments must be supported with evidence, and warrants are required for each arguments. Debate math for impacts is fine, but saying something is "common sense" and having a huge part of an argument relying on it is hard for me to vote on the argument.

Defense is not sticky and it has to be extended in the summary to be evaluated in the final focus. I don't require frontlines in the second rebuttal, but if there are frontlines in the second rebuttal I will flow it. In summary, there has to be frontlines but should also have weighing, so don't spend the entire three minutes of summary on frontlines. Offense has to be extended in both the summary and the final focus. No offense means no pass to the ballot. When extending anything in the round, explain the argument fully (i.e. uniqueness, link, impacts) with warrants. I am not going to vote on a 5-second extension.

I am fairly tabula rasa. Feel free to bring up new arguments. Just be prepared to justify why you are winning that argument and why that argument matters in the round.

Do not be a DocBot. Having a huge file of prepped work is good, I love debate with good evidence and heavy substance; however, mechanically reading off prewritten overviews/blocks/frontlines is not the purpose of debate. Oftentimes, solely relying on documents results in evidences to lack explicit implications to arguments in the round and that contributes nothing meaningful to the debate. Be sure to explain how arguments interact in the round.

Less Important But Still Important Things

Don't abuse evidence checks. If you checked an evidence, explain that evidence in your next speech. If you don't you are just wasting everyone's time.

Spreading is okay. But be clear when you spread. Generally, speak louder as you speak faster. If you are hitting a novice team, try to speak slower.

I will not flow crossfire. Referencing to the crossfire during speech is okay. Remember to stay professional in crossfire. Speaking non-stop in crossfire and interrupting your opponents continuously means low speaker points.

I don't expect any kritikal or theoretical debate in China. Most people don't know them and I am also not the judge for non-substance rounds. So please, try not to run Ks or theory shells, thanks.

Last but definitely not the least, debate should be educational and safe. If any discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and/or profane things are said, I reserve the right drop you, tank your speaker points, and report your behavior to your coach.

Feel free to contact me after the round via email and I will respond to it when I see it. I will be glad to help!

As a judge, my goal is to provide constructive and fair feedback that will help debaters improve their skills. I believe that all debaters should be treated with respect and should feel free to express their opinions without fear of judgment. I also believe that debate should be fun and enjoyable for all participants. With this in mind, here are some things you can expect from me as a judge:

• I will listen carefully to your arguments and give them the consideration they deserve
• I will evaluate the arguments based on their merits, not based on my personal beliefs or opinions
• I will give clear and concise feedback that will help you to learn and grow
• However, I am not a fan to fast speaking. While I understand that you may feel pressured to speak fast, I ask that you slow down and speak clearly so I can better understand you and for the sake of your arguments
• And lastly I want you to know that I am here to support you and help you improve.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge.

I give the win for the side that successfully defends their argument and has the greatest impact (the impact must stand to the end of the round). If anyone drops a contention, I will not put it into my decision unless the team brings it up again. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak clearly. I will not flow crossfire, so if you think you dominate it, it doesn’t matter. Be respectful to the opponents.

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

I have been actively judging for two years.

I prefer to see debaters and speakers give us more successful or persuasive strategies or skills.

I often write down key arguments and keep a rigorous flow, my evaluation criteria are logical analysis, clarity and effectiveness of organization, effective introduction and conclusion, use of supporting material, use of language and effective delivery.

During the debate I would like chose stronger and persuasive argument. I had an impressive debate that both sides did great job with strong evidence and persuasive speech.

For speech I hope to see significance and interest topic and logical and effective organization. For debate I hope to see you can have logical analysis and have a good understand of your supporting material which depend on how deep you can understand your topic. I hope all of you can respect other team and not interrupt, let the other person finish talking and have decorum.

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.