BINJ Debate Tournament
2025 — Nanjing, CN
Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI look to see you apply both public speaking and debate skills to use in debates. For each speech, you should be delivering strong arguments with the credible evidence to back up everything you're claiming. Don't spread. Unless you're looking to be an auctioneer in the future, it is of no real use to read as fast as possible. Deliver strong, clearly spoken speeches that any judge would be able to comprehend. I look for adaptation to changing judges/opponents. Additionally, debaters should actually be listening and taking note of what the opposing side is saying. It is immediately clear when one or both sides are just stating points without acknowledging what the opposing side stated. Pay attention for dropped contentions, weigh the impacts whenever appropriate.
First time judge, long time reader of arguments.
My top priority is to ensure that each side presents a clear and appropriate argument. I will sign my ballot to the team with the argument that is best supported.
I need to be able to hear what is being said clearly. Otherwise evidence presented could be dismissed.
Evidence could come from a variety of sources, but I am looking to ensure that you are using it to actually support your argument.
In your FF, be sure to clearly lay out a summary of why you should win.
I am a judge with lots of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the US. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.
I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.
You can ask more specific questions in the round.
Debating Experience:
The best 2019 Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship.
The 2nd best 2018 Parliament Debates in Harare.
The best Debate Speaker in 2018, Midlands Province qualifications.
High school Debate Mentor from 2020 to 2023 at Cheziya High School.
Judging Experience:
Harbinger Online Debate Practice 2024.
NHSDLC Zhengzhou Tournament 2024
NHSDLC Wuhan Offline Tournament 2024
BIHZ Tournament 2024
NHSDLC Qingdao Offline Tournament 2024
NHSDLC Online 4 Tournament 2024
BINJ Debate Tournament 2025
Judging Preference :
As a debate judge, I commit to being unbiased, impartial, and free from any potential conflicts of interest. I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence-based claims, and logical reasoning in my evaluations. I value concise and impactful delivery, strict adherence to time limits, and respectful engagement with opponents. I will be thorough and observant, paying close attention to the details of each argument presented. I appreciate debaters who actively engage with opposing arguments and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. My ultimate goal is to assess the strength of arguments, depth of analysis, and overall debate strategy to determine the winner. I prefer debaters who speak clearly and concisely, balancing speed with clarity to ensure their points are understood. Debating a fast talker is not an issue, as I will focus on the substance of their arguments. I will articulate my decisions clearly and concisely, supported by detailed notes that evaluate how each argument impacts the truth or falsehood of the resolution.
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 all debates.
The Standard for My Decision in the Debate (RFD):
In evaluating the debate, my decision will be based on which side presents a more compelling and well-supported case. The team that provides stronger evidence and more persuasive argumentation will hold the advantage. My standard for decision (RFD) is as follows: I will assess which side has demonstrated greater impact and relevance in their arguments. The team that effectively establishes the significance and implications of their points will be favored. Additionally, I will consider the clarity and coherence of each team’s arguments, as well as how well their points flow throughout the debate. A logical narrative, effective rebuttals, and strategic responses will carry significant weight in my decision. Finally, the overall impression of the debate will influence my judgment. This includes the persuasiveness of the arguments, the effectiveness of the presentation, and the debaters’ ability to maintain composure, clarity, and professionalism throughout the round while adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.
Email: engineerjena830@gmail.com
Thabo Jena
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.
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
Judging Paradigm:
As a science teacher with a passion for nurturing critical thinking skills, I bring a unique perspective to debate and public speaking competitions. My judging philosophy centers around the importance of logic, facts, and rigorous research. I firmly believe that a well-structured argument supported by solid evidence is the foundation of persuasive communication. While I appreciate effective communication and delivery, my primary focus is on the substance of the arguments presented.
Teaching and Coaching Approach:
My experience as a science teacher has influenced my approach to coaching. I encourage students to challenge conventional norms and explore ideas independently. I appreciate when participants take the initiative to delve into the subject matter, even if their conclusions differ from established knowledge. I emphasize the importance of accuracy by encouraging students to back their arguments with references, citing sources, articles, or quotes.
Expectations for Participants:
Confidence is a valued trait in participants, as it allows them to present their ideas effectively, even when faced with opposing viewpoints. While I respect thorough preparation and research, I also appreciate students who can rely on their general knowledge and logical reasoning to support their positions. It's crucial for participants to strike a balance between passion and tenacity, ensuring that their emotions enhance their arguments rather than detract from them.
Debate or Speech Format Preferences:
I have no specific preferences for debate formats or speech categories. In my view, logic should prevail in any format, and every debate or speech provides an opportunity for valuable learning, particularly through reflecting on losses and improving for the future.
Advice and Guidance for Students:
To succeed in debates and speeches, I advise students to prioritize confidence and logical reasoning. Challenge conventional wisdom and seek to understand complex topics deeply. Embrace the power of research and solid evidence to support your arguments. Remember that learning from your losses is a valuable part of the educational journey in debate.
I believe that public forum debate is all about evidence gathering and impact weighing. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and weigh it well, you can win the round.
I believe that a speech is all about the relevance of the chosen topic, the relatability of the topic to the audience, and originality that is there are any truly original topics. These three key areas are important when presenting a speech and if done well will help you earn higher points.
I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps in maximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.
Clarity, evidence, critical thinking, and polite conversation are all given top priority in my paradigm as a judge of public forums, junior debates,congressional debates and public speaking.
When judging junior debate and public forum I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by reliable sources and compelling data. Additionally crucial is effective critical thinking, which demonstrates logical reasoning and knowledge of opposing viewpoints. Personal assaults are not tolerated; instead, it is anticipated that arguments from opponents be engaged in a civil and productive manner. When opponents' arguments are successfully refuted, it carries a lot of weight. I take into account reasoning (40%), evidence (30%), critical thinking (20%), and delivery (10%) when assessing debates. Ignoring counterarguments, providing unsupported facts, or breaking debate rules all result in penalties. The team that best satisfies these requirements and exhibits superior arguments, evidence, and refutation will be declared the winner.
When judging speech I look for clarity in the speech's introduction, body and conclusion.Eye contact, language use, body language, tone of voice, topic relevancy, and time management are all things I look for. When scoring I use the following criteria; excellent ,good ,satisfactory , and in need of improvement.
My ultimate goal is to organize a fair, fruitful, and intellectually challenging competition where players participate rigorously and with respect, developing their critical thinking and communication abilities while also gaining a greater understanding of the subject.
Framework: I place a strong emphasis on the framework, which involves deciding which issues or impacts are most important and instructing debaters on how to weigh them in the round. The main priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis, and effective use of evidence.
Speaker Points: To decide the winner, I look at speaker points based on a debater's presentation style, clarity, and overall performance. Strong communication skills contribute to a more persuasive and engaging performance. Respect for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate.
Clash and Rebuttal: I also look at the clash—direct engagement with the opponent's arguments—and effective rebuttal. Debaters are expected to respond to opposing points and demonstrate why their arguments are superior.
Relevant Evidence: The utilization of relevant evidence and examples to support arguments is vital. I assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team.
Name: Tatenda Musekiwa
Age:22
Location: MA’ANSHAN
College: ANHUI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field):STUDENT IN COLLEGE
Tabroom email: tatendamusekiwa073@gmail.com
1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?
-PF DEBATE, WSD DEBATE AND PUBLIC SPEAKING
- Less than a year
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
-I consider fast-talking effective if it’s clear and persuasive, but not if it is at the expense of clarity or comprehension.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
-Aggressiveness can be seen as a sign of passion, but it should not compromise respectfulness and civility.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
-The winner is determined by the strength of arguments, evidence, and presentation,as well as their ability to address counterarguments.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate. - Please focus on respectful dialogue, clear argumentation, and effective rebuttals.
6. How many Lincoln- Douglas 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.
Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.
9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making?
10
10. How important is value and criterion to your decision making?
10
11. How important is cross-examination in your decision making?
8
12. How important is weighing in your decision making?
10
13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making
8
14. How fast should students speak?
7
With seven years of experience teaching English and an equally extensive background in coaching and judging competitive debate and speech events, I have developed a nuanced approach to evaluating rounds. This dual role as an educator and adjudicator informs my understanding of both the technical and performative aspects of debate, allowing me to strike a balance between argumentation and presentation. My aim is to provide fair, constructive feedback that challenges debaters to grow while recognizing their strengths.
Clarity is paramount in debate. While I recognize that competitive debate often involves fast-paced speech, debaters should prioritize making their arguments comprehensible. Speaking too quickly can result in lost coherence, and key ideas may not be fully absorbed by the audience or the judge. I appreciate a moderate rate of delivery that ensures clarity without sacrificing depth or content. Similarly, I value purposeful use of jargon or technical language. When employed, it should be clearly defined and integrated seamlessly into the argumentation. Overuse of technical terminology without explanation can alienate the audience and obscure the debater's message.
During rounds, I maintain a rigorous flow, meticulously tracking arguments, evidence, and rebuttals. My notes serve as a detailed record of the debate’s progression, focusing on both the micro-level (specific arguments) and macro-level (strategic vision). While flowing helps me keep up with the round’s structure, I also pay attention to overarching narratives and thematic connections that debaters craft. A well-constructed flow aids my decision-making, but I remain attentive to the broader dynamics of the debate.
I value argument and style equally. Strong arguments, no matter how technically sound, must be communicated effectively to persuade the audience. Conversely, an engaging delivery without substantive arguments lacks credibility. The most successful debaters combine analytical depth with persuasive communication, using their speaking style to emphasize and enhance their case. In my view, a winning debater is both intellectually rigorous and eloquently expressive.
The delivery styles I find most persuasive are confident and conversational. Debaters who engage with their audience while demonstrating control over their material often stand out. Effective use of vocal modulation, intentional pauses, and clear articulation can significantly enhance a debater’s impact. However, overly aggressive or excessively theatrical styles can detract from an argument’s credibility, particularly if they appear insincere or performative.
When evaluating a debate, I consider several factors. First, I look at clash—how well debaters engage with opposing arguments and provide direct responses. Second, I assess the quality of evidence, focusing on its credibility and how effectively it supports the arguments. Logical consistency and coherence are also crucial. I value debaters who demonstrate strategic vision, prioritizing key points and weighing impacts effectively through impact calculus. Finally, I consider delivery, evaluating clarity, persuasiveness, and engagement.
The most persuasive arguments I’ve encountered are those that combine robust evidence with real-world implications. Debaters who frame their arguments in terms of their broader significance and effectively dismantle their opponents’ positions tend to excel. A strong narrative that ties arguments together and demonstrates comparative impacts often resonates with me. I am particularly impressed by debaters who navigate complex issues with clarity while maintaining focus on the key points of contention.
Professionalism, respect, and decorum are essential in every round. I expect debaters to engage with their opponents’ arguments rather than targeting them personally. Courtesy, effective time management, and adherence to procedural norms are non-negotiable. Disrespect, hostility, or unethical behavior not only detract from the debate’s quality but will also be reflected in my decision-making and speaker points.
In conclusion, my judging philosophy emphasizes a balance between argumentation and presentation, clarity over speed, and professionalism in conduct. By maintaining these standards, I strive to foster a fair, educational, and enriching environment that allows debaters to excel both intellectually and communicatively.
BRANDON L.P. Judging Paradigm
Introduction
I have been a judge for more than two years, and in the last year, I have judged over eleven tournaments. My extensive background in judging has equipped me with the skills necessary to provide thorough and fair evaluations, ensuring a positive experience for all participants.
Judging Philosophy
Throughout the argument, I take careful notes because I think it's essential to record all significant points. I thoroughly examine and document every significant argument since these specifics help me make an overall evaluation of the round.
Summary Speech Expectations
The main purpose of the summary speech is to draw attention to the main issues of contention and show how your team has won the argument. Instead of presenting fresh ideas, I like to reflect on the entire debate in summary speeches. This means focusing on resolving any unresolved issues and combining arguments.
Topic Definition
I rate the importance of topic definition a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. I understand that a clear and relevant definition can improve the discussion, even though I would rather stick to the accepted term. Arguments about technicalities are not given priority by me until they significantly advance the subject at hand.
Framework Importance
I give a framework's significance in my decision-making a seven. In order to guide the discussion and guarantee that arguments are consistently evaluated, a clear framework is necessary. I concentrate on how well your framework supports your claims and if I can follow your reasoning back to the source of your decisions.
Crossfire Evaluation
I give Crossfire a seven for significance. This section is mostly used by me to verify your claims and determine the strength of your arguments. It is also helpful for figuring out which arguments are more convincing, particularly when they conflict. When assessing your capacity to defend your positions against criticism, Crossfire can be extremely beneficial.
Weighing Arguments
I give the importance of weighing arguments an eight. I need to see that you can show why your arguments are more important by comparing and contrasting your views with those of your opponent. Making a strong case requires the capacity to effectively weigh arguments.
Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication
I rate persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication a five out of ten. I will not penalize debaters who do not succeed in properly selling their points, even though I do encourage them to do so. On the other hand, a powerful delivery might make your points seem more compelling.
Speaking Speed
My preferred speaking speed is a 7, which is just a little bit above average. Fast delivery is OK with me, but it is crucial that you clearly state your points. You are probably talking too quickly if you are having trouble breathing. Clarity and lyricism in speech are essential.
Final Thoughts
I will keep improving this judge paradigm as I get more experience because it is adaptable writing. I will do everything to make this a fruitful experience for all participants, and I am excited to see the creativity and dedication that each debater brings to the table.
Hi debaters,
As I noticed majorly I will be judging Impromptu and PuFo, so my Paradigm is basically for them.
I'm a Middle School Dean, and I prefer discipline in the room. Please be respectful while you are speaking/preparing for your speech.
You do not need to change your style of speaking for me (speed, accent, rhythm…), if I missed anything, I would reach out and ask for it. But as English is not my first language, I do prefer debaters that speak with high clarity and mid-level speed.
Don’t use too much technical stuff, if you do, explain it in short. Otherwise, the argument will be lost on me.
Be nice to your opponents. There’s a difference between being aggressive in crossfire and being mean, don’t be mean. Please let your opponent complete their thought in crossfire before interrupting.
I value heavily when debaters telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things.
Wish you all have a great experience in BISZ!
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 last year.
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 information in your warrant is important.
For content, I value analysis over evidence. In my opinion, data is a tool to support your ideas and explanation. It should not be your main explanation. A good debater does not just throw information at opponents, but rather contextualizes and explains those key facts. Of course, you are not an expert in the field we're debating on, so evidence is still absolutely needed, but you should focus on logically explaining the reasoning and then setting up that evidence to be presented. In addition, I really like clear roadmapping, just a personal preference so I can organize my ballot is all.
Summary speeches should clearly expand arguments first and foremost with rebuttals acting as a secondary. Additional arguments raised in crossfire will be not weighed less unless expanded upon in the summary. On the other hand, I view final focus as a time to build a more emotionally charged impact-based speech.
I prefer to allow students moderate their own timing and interactions, and take more of a passive role in moderating debates. If a student is very rude or disrespectful, then I will step in as needed.
I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. A good debater is also someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.