BINJ Debate Tournament
2025 — Nanjing, CN
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAbimbola Susan Ajagun
Email: bimboolisa@gmail.com
I strive to be an objective and fair judge, assessing debates based on the merit of arguments rather than personal preferences. My primary goal is to contribute to the educational and intellectual growth of all participants, fostering an environment where skills are developed, and ideas are challenged constructively.
Substance carries more weight than style; well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence are crucial. However, effective communication enhances persuasion, so I value confident, clear, and engaging delivery. Debaters should approach rebuttals with a balance of refutation and rebuilding, demonstrating their grasp of key issues while critically addressing their opponents' points. Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and challenge effectively, adding depth to the debate.
Adaptability is key to success. While strategy is important, rigid adherence to a single approach can hinder performance. I appreciate debaters who can adjust their tactics as the discussion evolves, showing flexibility and critical thinking.
Above all, I aim to uphold the educational goals of speech and debate, ensuring fairness and respect in every round. My feedback is intended to guide participants toward growth, emphasizing their strengths and improvement opportunities. Debate is a platform for learning, and I am committed to preserving its integrity and value for all competitors.
I am looking to see your ability to clearly articulate your points, use positive body language, a strong voice, and eye contact. Speakers should work to persuade/inform with confidence. Convince with facts and persuade with information and genuine, clear arguments.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!
Firstly, and most important - no spreading (speed reading).
I prefer to hear arguments based on logic; statistics are useful but please do not try to drown me in numbers.
I do want rational arguments, I will not be swayed by sentimentally.
Don't be aggressive with your opponents, be polite and civil.
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.
I believe in providing equal opportunities for all competitors. I will judge solely based on the arguments presented in the round, not personal biases or outside information and so I expect logical and evidence-based arguments as well as strong and effective rebuttals. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. I also aim to provide constructive feedback that helps competitors grow. I expect all participants to maintain respect towards each other and towards the activity itself.
I understand that different events require different judging approaches. I will, therefore, adapt my criteria and feedback accordingly.
I encourage competitors to practice time management to make the most of their speaking opportunities. I will enforce time limits fairly to ensure a smooth and timely tournament experience for all participants.
Judge Philosophies
2.Tell us about your debate judging experience. [c]
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]
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)
My answer: Not only should the second rebuttal speaker respond to the first rebuttal but they should also use the second rebuttal to rebuild their own case. Focusing more on using the opponents points from the first rebuttal to build their own case rather than just responding to each point without a strong argument. I also appreciate debaters who can gauge how the debate is going and can make strategic rebuttals based on that.
7.How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes? [d]
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)
My answer: Flowing is very important. I take lots of notes while also trying my best to actively listening and use that to make my decision.
8.What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
a plethora of factors go into my decision of who wins a debate such as:
- The level of clarity in the organization and presentation of a teams framework and contentions
- The strength of their argument. Including supportive evidence is even better.
- Effective rebuttal and crossfires: the speakers should pay close attention to their opponents claims and effectively uses them to build their own case and also to undermine their opponents case.
- Overall round off each round: the speakers should strategically present their framework and contentions and defend them in each round without going off track, be able to use their opponents arguments to support their own instead and know which arguments to concede to and which to drop.
- Non-verbal cues are also very important. Body language, gestures, and facial expressions can influence the perception of a speakers arguments, making them appear more confident and conveying their conviction. This can enhance their persuasiveness and credibility and sometimes even adds an emotional appeal.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I am committed to fairness and objectivity in my evaluations, focusing on the quality of an argument rather than personal bias. I also expect debaters to adhere to all tournament rules and follow time strictly. I appreciate well structured arguments that are rational, straight to the point, and easy to follow. Take your time, present and defend your arguments and speak at a medium pace so all your points are clearly heard. Finally, I define aggressiveness as speaking with conviction, asking sharp relevant questions to expose weakness and inconsistencies in opposing arguments and using strong evidence and logic to undermine opposing arguments. Please avoid speaking too loudly ridiculing others and speaking in an aggressive or intimidating manner.
I focus on arguments that are carried forward and focused on by the debaters themselves.
I like explicit weighing and justified weighing mechanisms.
I'm open to creative arguments or unique interpretations of topics or resolutions as long as they are logically sound, but do not like Ks that completely ignore the implied substance of the resolution or topic.
Be civil in XF with on another.
I appreciate thoughtful arguments that are iterated with care and pace. Connection to the argument and understanding of what you are arguing goes a long way to garnering my support. Speed and volume is not key with me. Slow down.
I appreciate thoughtful arguments that are iterated with care and pace. Connection to the argument and understanding of what you are arguing goes a long way to garnering my support. Speed and volume is not the key with me. Slow down. Contextualizing arguments always helps.
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.
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.
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.
Consider me lay judge. 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 that you listened to your opponent.
- Convince me with your arguments
Good luck and I look forward to seeing you compete.
I have never coached or judged a speech & debate event.
I prefer a consistent, measured paced delivery of well-structured and relevant arguments. I do not prefer information dumps or high-speed, tangential delivery that is (possibly) intended to overwhelm the opponent.
I value data-driven arguments over emotion-based arguments. I am more concerned with long-term arguments than short-term arguments. Also, I do not believe that the right decision is the one that brings benefit to the most people, but rather the decision that delivers the most overall benefit, regardless of how that benefit is distributed. Basically, I care more about the size of the benefit pie than how the benefit pie is sliced.
My note-taking will be quite detailed, including key arguments but also smaller, supporting details, and my perception of the quality of that information and the quality of its delivery.
I value argument over style. To me, a clear, concise, logical argument is much more persuasive. However, if that type of argument can be delivered WITH style, that is even more ideal: confident, evocative speakers will draw my attention.
As this is my first time judging, it is hard to say what my specific assessment criteria are, but some of the things I've mentioned above will be helpful to predicting how I will judge.
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.
TAFADZWA LESLIE KAMPIYAWO
Debating Experience:
Semi Finalists 2021 at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship (Online)
3rd Price, at District Schools Debate Tournament
2nd Best Speaker Price at High school Junior Parliament
Peter House Boys High Debate competitions qualifiers
Winner Religious Debate at Roman Catholic Church
Judging Experience:
2024 NHSDLC Shanghai Regional Speech & Debate Tournament
2024 NHSDLC Hangzhou Speech & Debate Tournament
2024 NHSDLC WUHAN Speech & Debate Tournament
2024 online BIHZ Tournament
2024 Harbinger Hangzhou offline tournament
2024 NHSDLC 11/23-11/24 Hangzhou Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 WSDA Qingdao offline Tournament
2024 NHSDLC 12/14-12/15 Guangzhou speech and debate Tournament
2024 WSDA Shanghai offline tournament
2025 BINJ Offline Tournament Debate
Judging Preference or Judging criteria:
As a judge, I evaluate debates based on the quality of arguments, presentation, and strategy. My primary focus is on the clarity, logic, and persuasive power of the arguments presented. I prioritize teams that present well-structured, evidence-based arguments that effectively address the topic.
Effective presentation is also crucial, as I consider the clarity, concision, and delivery of speeches. I assess the teams' ability to communicate their arguments clearly and persuasively, taking into account factors such as body language, tone, and pace.
Strategy is another key aspect of debate that I evaluate. I consider the teams' approach to the topic, including their ability to identify key issues, counterarguments, and effective rebuttals. I assess their ability to allocate time effectively, ensuring that all points are covered and arguments are fully developed.
When evaluating rebuttals and counterarguments, I consider the teams' ability to respond to opponents' arguments, challenge assumptions, and present effective counterarguments. I also assess the credibility and relevance of sources used to support arguments.
Ultimately, my decision is based on which team presents the most persuasive case, taking into account all of the above criteria. While I strive to be impartial, I tend to favor teams that present clear, concise, and well-structured arguments, use credible sources and evidence, and demonstrate effective time management and organization.
As a judge, I adapt my paradigm to align with the specific rules and guidelines of each tournament, ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of debates.
The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)
In making my decision at the debate, I will be evaluating teams based on their ability to present clear, logical, and persuasive arguments that effectively address the topic. My standard for decision (RFD) is as follows: I will assess whether teams have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the topic, identified key issues, and presented relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will also evaluate their ability to respond to opponents' arguments, adapt to the debate's progression, and demonstrate effective time management and strategic thinking. Ultimately, I will award the team that presents the most compelling case, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic and the ability to persuasively communicate their arguments, while also adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.
Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ Personal Voov Meeting Code
#腾讯会议:630-778-6692
Tabroom Email address: tafadzwakampiyawo@gmail.com
Location: 安徽省马鞍山市花山区霍里街道安徽工业大学秀山校区研究生公寓7栋 Anhui University Of Technology, Ma'anshan China
I come to the debate with a clear slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.
In my opinion debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic
I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.
I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.
Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion
It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will effect society.
Experience: I have been judging high school debate for over three years, and I have judging experience in close to 50 rounds of debate and speech competitions, including semi-final and final rounds. My structured approach focuses on clarity, logic, and evidence-based argumentation.
Framework: I judge the round based on the framework or decision-making criterion that the debaters agree on. If there’s a clash in the framework, I will evaluate which side has best supported their interpretation with sound reasoning. My decision will ultimately reflect the structure the debaters set for the round.
Flowing: I write down (or "flow") the key arguments throughout the round. This helps me keep track of the progression of the debate and ensures I evaluate all key points made. If an argument isn't extended or properly explained, I may not weigh it heavily in my decision.
Argumentation: I value well-reasoned, persuasive arguments that are backed by credible facts and evidence. I am particularly looking for arguments that link to the criterion or standard that each competitor advocates. Logical consistency and strong impacts are crucial for winning my ballot.
Weighing: I am persuaded by clear impact calculus; tell me why your argument matters more in the context of the debate. Make sure to explain the significance of your arguments in comparison to your opponent's and how they directly affect the round’s framework or criterion.
Cross-examination: This is an important part of the debate for me. It’s your opportunity to clarify issues, expose weaknesses in your opponent's case, and strengthen your own. I take note of how well debaters control the cross-examination and use it to further their arguments. I appreciate when debaters not only defend their own points but also challenge the reasoning or evidence of their opponents.
Decision: I will decide the winner based on the strength of the arguments, the evidence supporting them, and how well they align with the agreed-upon framework. If you can clearly show how your arguments link to your criterion and why they outweigh your opponent’s, you will likely win the round.
Final Note: I appreciate clear and respectful communication. I will not evaluate arguments that rely on bad faith or offensive rhetoric. If you want me to consider something, make sure to bring it up clearly—do not expect me to "fill in the gaps."
As a speech judge, my role is to evaluate and score your speeches. Your performance will be assessed based on several crucial criteria.
Firstly, ensure your speech is clear and delivered with a strong, audible voice. It's essential that the audience easily comprehends your message. Secondly, your theme should be consistent, leaving no doubt about your speech's main idea. Incorporate relevant evidence and supporting materials effectively. Engage the audience by using appropriate gestures and body language. Lastly, adhere to the allocated time for your speech, avoiding both rushing and exceeding the limit.
Good luck, and I anticipate evaluating your performance.
Judge philosophies
- judge’s name: MAGUNDA TAROPAFADZWA
- 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
- 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.
- 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 alsoevaluate 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.
- Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .
1. What types of debates have you participated before and how long is your debate career?
Public Forum debate: 2 years of participation during High School, 2014-2017, 2 appearances at the provincial level ZINDC and ZNDT
2. How do you consider 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.How do you consider aggressiveness?
I see aggressiveness as a tactic used during debates to ridicule your opponent. That being said, I would strongly advise against using this in a tournament setting. Respect your opposition. This is a pretty good strategy in politics, but we aren't here to judge your character, we are here to judge your arguments. Don't make it so that we are forced to consider aggressiveness into our judging paradigm.
4.How do you usually determine 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.
Generally speaking, the person who can effectively refute their opponent's points and present the strongest, most convincing case will probably win the debate.
The winner of a debate is the one who most successfully accomplishes the main objective of the discussion, which is to have a courteous and educational exchange of ideas.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?
For me, it's critical to see well-reasoned arguments from both sides supported by current, pertinent data. Additionally, I favor debaters who can maintain composure under pressure by refraining from insults, personal attacks, and even insulting language. Finally, stay on topic and refrain from digressions or unrelated debates that have no bearing on the main point.
6. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?
B. 6-10
7. How many notes do you take during a debate?
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.
9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making?
8
10. How important is the framework to your decision making?
8
11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
10
12. How important is weighing in your decision making?
9
13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
8
14. How fast should students speak?
8
GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My approach to judging is rooted in clarity, professionalism, and a strategic evaluation of arguments. When it comes to speaking speed, I prefer an intermediate pace that allows me to follow the debate and take notes effectively. I encourage debaters to prioritize clarity over speed, ensuring their arguments are well-articulated and easy to understand. While I value passionate and assertive speaking styles, as they demonstrate confidence and conviction, I do not tolerate hostility, condescension, or personal attacks. Such behavior detracts from the constructive exchange of ideas and will negatively affect a team’s evaluation.
In determining the winner of a debate, I focus on the strength of claims, warrants, impacts, and evidence. Rebuttals are especially important to me, as I consider how effectively a team addresses and counters the majority of their opponent’s points. Impacts are carefully weighed after the summary speeches, which I view as a critical opportunity for debaters to highlight key clashes and demonstrate their superiority on those issues.
I highly value clarity and organization in debate. I expect debaters to structure their speeches with clear signposting and smooth transitions, making it easy to follow the flow of arguments. I prioritize quality over quantity, favoring well-reasoned and supported arguments over a long list of underdeveloped points. Evidence is essential, but it is not enough to simply cite facts; I expect debaters to analyze their evidence and explain its relevance and impact within the debate.
Crossfire holds significant importance in my decision-making process. I value strategic questioning that demonstrates listening skills and uses the opponent’s answers to strengthen one’s own case. However, it is crucial to maintain respect and professionalism during crossfire. Aggressive or confrontational behavior is counterproductive and can harm a team’s evaluation.
Professionalism is a cornerstone of my judging philosophy. I appreciate debaters who remain composed and respectful, even under pressure. Personal attacks or unprofessional conduct are unacceptable and will result in penalties. In summary speeches, I expect debaters to emphasize major clashes, provide clear comparisons of impacts, and show how their team prevailed. A well-executed summary allows me to make a fair and informed decision.
My scoring priorities reflect what I value most in debate. I assign high importance to defining the topic (8/10), crossfire (9/10), framework (7/10), weighing impacts (7/10), and persuasive speaking along with non-verbal communication (7/10). I aim to take detailed notes on the most important points rather than everything, focusing heavily on the overall quality and presentation of the debate.
Finally, my advice to debaters is to remain calm, clear, and confident under pressure. I respect those who can effectively convey their ideas while maintaining professionalism and composure. By following these guidelines, debaters can ensure a strong performance in front of me as a judge.
Judge Philosophies
Judge’s Name: Latifa Mtawali
As a debate and public speech judge, I will consider the following factors when deciding the best speech or debate:
- What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
1. Substance of Arguments
Strength of evidence: Did the debaters back their claims with facts, statistics, and credible sources?
Logical reasoning: Were the arguments internally consistent and well-structured? Did they avoid fallacies?
Addressing counter-arguments: Did the debaters anticipate and effectively respond to opposing viewpoints?
2. Delivery and Style:
Clarity and conciseness: Were the arguments easy to understand and follow?
Charisma and stage presence: Did the debater hold the audience's attention and project confidence?
Civility and respect: Did the debaters treat each other and opposing viewpoints with respect?
3. Audience and Context:
Debate format: Was it a formal competition with set rules or a more informal discussion?
Audience expectations: What were the audience members hoping to gain from the debate?
Persuasiveness: Did the debater effectively shift the audience's opinion on the issue?
Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
The energy of young debaters is truly inspiring! Witnessing their passion and deep knowledge of these important issues is a privilege. I'm excited to participate and immerse myself in the entire experience.
I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.
I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.
Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.
Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.
I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.
Debate judging paradigm
Name: Ronald
Age: 26
College: NJUPT
Current Occupation: Phd
- What types of debate have you participated in before, and how long is your debate career?
NSDA Judge China (2019-now), - How do you consider fast-talking?
Arguments should be delivered at a moderate pace, with an emphasis on communication. Clarity and structure are more important than speed. - How do you consider aggressiveness?
Debaters should be respectful towards opponents while presenting their arguments. I prefer to see strategic, confident debating over unnecessary aggression. - How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
· Clear and well-developed arguments presented in constructive speeches.
· Impact weighing in rebuttals—well-explained and justified arguments win.
· Extending arguments from constructive to rebuttals effectively.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
Ø Keep your arguments structured and well-connected throughout your speeches.
Ø Ensure to provide voters to address key issues from the constructive speech in rebuttals.
Ø Use key evidence and data where possible to strengthen arguments.
- How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
11+ - How many notes do you take during a debate?
A. I try to take notes on everything.
B. I write down the points I think are important.
C. I take a few notes and focus more on the overall presentation. - What is the main job of the summary speech?
A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.
B. Highlight the major points of the clash and show how your team won them.
C. Answer all the attacks on your contentions made by the rebuttal speech.
Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10:
9. How important is defining the topic to your decision-making? 9
10. How important is framework to your decision-making? 5
11. How important is crossfire in your decision-making? 7
12. How important is weighing in your decision-making? 10
13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 7
14. How fast should students speak? 5 – A moderate to moderately fast pace allows for clarity and better note-taking.
In a debate judging, I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence-based claims, and logical reasoning. I value concise and impactful delivery, adherence to time limits, and respect for opponents. I appreciate debaters who engage with the opposing arguments and maintain a professional demeanor. Ultimately, I aim to assess the strength of arguments, depth of analysis, and overall debate strategy to determine the
What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?. Public forum, JWSD, original oratory extemporaneous, impromptu, informative speech.I have worked with several debating organizations such as NHSDLC, SIDC, TOC, BASIS, for the past 2 years
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?
Well detailed claim, link and impact of each contention raised. The points should be supported by good evidence, high quality of rebuttal.
8. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
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
l used to be the head coach of my high school's debating program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and keepinical evidence wil not win the round by trying to
not win the round by trying to
win an emotional argument.I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks. Judge Philosophies 1 Judge's Name: Sharon Musoke 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e] a.l have never judged debate before. b.l have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time Judging Public Forum. c.l have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before. d.I have judged debate for mage than ear, tuble for more rhes thear. Se us have
your debating experience.[d] a.l have never debated competitively before. b.l debated Public Forum for less than a year. c.l debated other formats for less than a year. d. 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.l coach debate and have researched this topic b.I have professional-level knowledge about this topic. c.l regularly read news about this topic. It's an interest of mine. d.l 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, it 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 mantidy the opposing dire. How important is the the cous 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 Secsion a importans uterey hosed to aid metes aking 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 struct lied sheeches that are easy to to you and deciate well. persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate
Tinashe Musuka
Debating Experience:
National 2nd Price, at National Schools Debate Championship
2018 3rd Regional best speaker- at Zimbabwe National University Debate Championship
Pre Quarter Finalists at 2020-at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship
National Constitutional Court Schools Debate Tournament-2019 Grand Finalists
Judging Experience:
BASIS INTERNATIONAL PARK LANE HARBOUR 20/4/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL BILLINGUAL CHENGDU 30/3/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL HANGZHOU 9/13/2023 Public Forum
Judging Preference or Judging cateria:
My preference for the outcome of the debate may vary slightly depending on the specific rules and regulations of the tournament or organization and I consider fairness, adherence to debate rules, and overall impact of the arguments presented by each team:
The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)
Clarity and Organization: I evaluate how well debaters communicate their arguments and ideas. Debaters should articulate their points clearly and concisely, using logical organization and effective signposting.
Content and Evidence: I assess the quality and relevance of the arguments presented by debaters. Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence and sources and I also consider the depth of analysis and the ability to respond to opposing arguments.
Clash and Rebuttal: I look for effective clash and rebuttal between debaters. Debaters should engage with the arguments made by their opponents, address their points, and provide counterarguments also i assess the ability to identify flaws in opposing arguments and effectively challenge them.
Use of Crossfire: I evaluate how debaters utilize crossfire, a period of direct questioning between teams. Debaters should ask strategic and relevant questions, respond effectively to their opponents’ questions, and use crossfire to clarify and strengthen their arguments.
Delivery and Style: I also consider the overall speaking style and delivery of debaters. Debaters should speak with confidence, clarity, and appropriate use of gestures and vocal variety and use of fluent English also Debaters should assess the ability to engage the audience and maintain a professional demeanor.
Summary and Final Focus: I assess the ability of debaters to summarize the main arguments and reiterate their team’s position. Debaters should effectively prioritize key points and provide a clear final focus on why their team should win the debates
Location:
Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunication, Jiangsu Province, China
As a creative judge, my paradigm follows an imaginative approach,embarking on a journey where ideas are celebrated, curiosity is fostered, and innovation is the cornerstone. I believe in inspiring an atmosphere that cherishes openness and unrestricted thinking.
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.
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.
As a debate judge, I prioritize clarity, fairness, and respectful argumentation. I believe that well-structured arguments, supported by logical reasoning and evidence, are essential to winning rounds.
Clarity is especially important to me because if I cannot understand an argument, I cannot weigh it effectively. I appreciate debaters who take the time to explain their impacts and compare them directly with those of their opponents. Strong impact calculus and clear connections between arguments and outcomes will greatly influence my decision-making. I am open to technical debate, but it should always remain accessible and understandable.
Regarding fairness, I believe that every debater deserves an equal opportunity to present their case and engage with their opponent. Respectful interaction is crucial, and I will not tolerate personal attacks or hostile behaviour.
I also weigh fairness issues like time violations and topicality seriously, as they can affect the integrity of the debate. My ultimate goal is to reward the team that best fulfils their burden of proof while maintaining a respectful and fair environment throughout the round.
Let's interact, learn and enjoy
I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.
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.Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.
I do like to see debaters familiar enough with the evidence that they are not just reading cards - but know their evidence and can explain it effectively. This demonstrates your analysis is 'live' and relates to what specifically is said in the round.
A debate for me is a clash of ideas first and I will value what is said before I consider how it is delivered.
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. However, barracking, or continuous demands for evidence to interrupt the round/ disrupt your opponent does not sit well with me.
On the nature of public forum
By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading (speed reading) 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.
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:
-
Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.
-
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.
-
Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.
-
Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.
-
Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.
-
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:
-
Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.
-
Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.
-
Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.
-
Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.
-
Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.
-
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:
-
Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.
-
Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.
-
Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.
-
Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.
-
Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.
-
Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.
Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model –
- Whatever basis for the decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
- Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules
- Debate Decisions are made based on:
- when debators lay good frameworks and contentions and are able to provide a strong link.
- 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,
- A very good summary of speeches from both teams.
For a speech pool debate: decisions are made firstly by;
- 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.
- 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
- time awareness
In conclusion, a speaker whether public speaking or debating should be very confident and use a good delivery style backed with examples and supports claims with logic or pieces of evidence
I'm a logos judge, meaning that I'm looking for clear contentions that are backed by evidence aligned with the contentions. I'm looking for a progression of thought through the arguments presented.
I take off speaker points for speakers who shout, deride, roll their eyes, or interrupt opponents. I'm not impressed by "spitting" (speaking so quickly that you can't be understood by most lay judges).
Moddy Princess Sibanda
Debating Experience:
Finalists 2021 at Zimbabwe
Quarter finalist Public Speaking and Debating Championship (Online)
2nd Best Speaker Price at High school Junior Parliament
Harare girls High Debate competitions qualifiers
Judging Experience:
2024 NHSDLC WUHAN Speech & Debate Tournament
2024 BIHZ tournament online
2024 NHSDLC Qingdao offline Public speaking Tournament
2024 NHSDLC Online 4 Public Forum
2024 NHSDLC Shanghai Offline Public Forum
2024 NHSDLC Shanghai Offline JWSD
2024 BIBWH Tournament online debate
2024 NHSDLC Fall Online 5 Speech
2025 BINJ Tournament Offline Public Forum
Judging Preference or Judging criteria:
As a judge, I evaluate debates based on the quality of arguments, presentation, and strategy. My primary focus is on the clarity, logic, and persuasive power of the arguments presented. I prioritize teams that present well-structured, evidence-based arguments that effectively address the topic.
Effective presentation is also crucial, as I consider the clarity, concision, and delivery of speeches. I assess the teams' ability to communicate their arguments clearly and persuasively, taking into account factors such as body language, tone, and pace.
Strategy is another key aspect of debate that I evaluate. I consider the teams' approach to the topic, including their ability to identify key issues, counterarguments, and effective rebuttals. I assess their ability to allocate time effectively, ensuring that all points are covered and arguments are fully developed.
When evaluating rebuttals and counterarguments, I consider the teams' ability to respond to opponents' arguments, challenge assumptions, and present effective counterarguments. I also assess the credibility and relevance of sources used to support arguments.
Ultimately, my decision is based on which team presents the most persuasive case, taking into account all of the above criteria. While I strive to be impartial, I tend to favor teams that present clear, concise, and well-structured arguments, use credible sources and evidence, and demonstrate effective time management and organization.
As a judge, I adapt my paradigm to align with the specific rules and guidelines of each tournament, ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of debates.
The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)
In making my decision at the debate, I will be evaluating teams based on their ability to present clear, logical, and persuasive arguments that effectively address the topic. My standard for decision (RFD) is as follows: I will assess whether teams have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the topic, identified key issues, and presented relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will also evaluate their ability to respond to opponents' arguments, adapt to the debate's progression, and demonstrate effective time management and strategic thinking. Ultimately, I will award the team that presents the most compelling case, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic and the ability to persuasively communicate their arguments, while also adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.
Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ Personal Voov Meeting Code
#腾讯会议:566-547-2914
Tabroom Email address: moddysibandap@gmail.com
Location: 江苏省南京市江宁区龙眠大道639号 中国药科大学 China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing China
Judge philosophies
- judge’s name: Moirah Sithole
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .
A few things I look For:
Long-term implications are NB
Also, real-life practicalities, beyond the policy; the "woman-in the street" feeling
Clear speaking-measured and not excessively fast or fact-bashing
Mix of Pathos and Logos
For me logos and ethos is more important that pathos – I don’t want to be emotionally manipulated by drastically sad stories use as examples to back up your case. I want to see a well thought out case development backed by reputable research.
I do not appreciate a quickly read fact dump – for me its important that there is interaction and rebuttal between the teams applying the facts that you have learned authentically rather than just listing them.
A few things I look For:
Long-term implications are NB
Also, real-life practicalities, beyond the policy; the "woman-in the street" feeling
Clear speaking-measured and not excessively fast or fact-bashing
Mix of Pathos and Logos
This is my first time judging speech or debate, but I do know what I value in an argument. Arguments must be clearly communicated in a way for other students and judges to understand. I also value quality and depth rather than a long list of shallower arguments. Arguments shall be judged without bias and purely on their strength, clarity, and quality.
From my perspective, a proper rating of a debate, especially persuasive debate like public forum debate is supposed to focus on various aspects. So, my evaluation will focus on the abilities and qualities necessary for all debaters, including but not limited in ethos, logos, and pathos.
But to go further, the clear, organized, and logical content delivery should have more weight than the enthusiast, confident, and masterful body language.
Clear verbal communication, constructive arguments, well-organized clarification, logical evidence output, critical thinking mindset, exceptional debate etiquette, and professional non-verbal communication are all expected to see from high scored debate teams.
Miss Kgosi is a leader, self motivated and good in team work. As a judge, I am looking for genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences. I seek for opponents to present evidence and skills that shows that a debater can construct a convincing case. Secondly, the skill that shows that a debater can listen and understand the other side and can rebut the statement, third, communication, the speech is clear and sound, a debater can deliver or present their case with clear pronunciation. Last but not least, team work, the group needs to work as a team and understand their roles.
Good luck and have fun.
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.