BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu
2024 — NSDA Campus, CN
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMichael Acquah-Baidoo [He/Him]
Student
Email:acquahmichael72@gmail.com
Experience: Debating has been a part of my academic journey from Junior high school through to my undergraduate studies. Four times I have a been a judge, twice in Ghana and twice in China. I have done more of public forums and few novice competitions.
TL;DR: Diligence I learned, designs destiny. So whatever good thing you find yourself doing do it with all diligence and it will payoff no matter how long it takes. Aim for the sky and let the mountain be your falling ground that way, you would still be high above the valleys when you fall. Finally, endeavor to surprise yourself and always remember that good laughter lightens every burden.
Fostering effective communication and critical thinking has always been my paradigm as a judge. My primary goal is to facilitate a fair, educational, and engaging debate environment. In evaluating debates, I adhere to the following principles:
- Content and Argumentation: While effective delivery is important, the strength of arguments and evidence is paramount. That is why quality is always preferred to quantity.
- Critical Analysis: A successful debater is one who is able to present arguments and respond effectively to opponents, demonstrating the ability to critically assess and refute opposing claims.
- Clash and Rebuttal: I value effective clash and rebuttals between opposing arguments. It toughens you up and speeds up your processing rate. It helps to rebuild and reinforce one's own arguments.
- Respect and Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is crucial. Debaters who adhere to time limits, avoid personal attacks, and foster a positive and constructive debate atmosphere are well appreciated.
I don't mind if you talk fast but you definitely must be heard. I would say 7/10.
Debate is a powerful art. It give you the voice to air your opinions and enriches you with magnanimity. You just need be make up your mind to enjoy every bit of it whether you win or find your yourself on the other side.
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 new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.
Hello!
I value clear communication, soundly researched arguments, and a strong sense of professionalism amongst participants. A strong team, for me, will be one that balances advanced public speaking skills with building their arguments. I have a low tolerance for teams to make personal attacks against their opponents during their debates.
HOPE DAVID
Age: 26 years
1. Debate Experience: I have participated in numerous debates over the past two years, encompassing various formats and topics.
2. Fast-Talking: I believe that fast-talking can be effective if the debaters maintain audibility, clarity, and understanding. The speed of speech should enhance, not hinder, the quality of arguments.
3. Aggressiveness: I value respectful assertiveness in debates, focusing on argument strength over personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.
4. Determining the Winner: I assess the debate based on each team's ability to support their arguments with evidence, logical reasoning, and persuasiveness. Effective responses to opponents' points are also crucial.
5.Additional Notes:Debaters should prioritize clarity, conciseness, and credible evidence. Avoiding personal attacks and emphasizing logical reasoning are key.
6. Judging Experience:I have judged 5 tournaments in the past year.
7. Note-Taking: I aim to take comprehensive notes covering all aspects of the debate.
8. Summary Speech: The summary speech should succinctly highlight the main points of contention and demonstrate why one team's arguments prevail.
Scale of 1-10:
9. Importance of Defining the Topic: 9 - Clear definition of the topic is essential for a solid decision.
10. Importance of Framework: 8 - A strong framework provides structure and guides the debate effectively.
11. Importance of Crossfire: 7 - Crossfire can provide valuable insights but may not be as decisive as other factors.
12. Importance of Weighing: 8 - Weighing arguments and impacts is crucial in determining the stronger position.
13. Importance of Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication: 8 - Effective communication, both verbal and non-verbal, enhances the impact of arguments.
14. Preferred Speaking Speed: 7 - While speed is important for content coverage, maintaining clarity and comprehension is paramount. Aim for a balanced pace.
I look to see you apply both public speaking and debate skills to use in debates. For each speech, you should be delivering strong arguments with the credible evidence to back up everything you're claiming. Don't spread. Unless you're looking to be an auctioneer in the future, it is of no real use to read as fast as possible. Deliver strong, clearly spoken speeches that any judge would be able to comprehend. I look for adaptation to changing judges/opponents. Additionally, debaters should actually be listening and taking note of what the opposing side is saying. It is immediately clear when one or both sides are just stating points without acknowledging what the opposing side stated. Pay attention for dropped contentions, weigh the impacts whenever appropriate.
As a second-time judge in a speech tournament, I will:
- Become familiar with the rules and evaluation criteria.
- Listen carefully and pay attention to delivery, language usage, and content.
- Maintain objectivity and impartiality and base my evaluations on speaker's performance.
- Provide constructive feedback to help speakers improve.
- Be respectful and encouraging to all speakers, recognizing their efforts and accomplishments.
- Use the opportunity to learn from other judges and share best practices.
- Stay engaged and involved throughout the tournament, networking with other judges and organizers.
- Follow the established procedures and guidelines, ensuring a smooth and successful competition.
- Actively participate in debriefings and panels to share insights and ideas for improving the tournament.
- Embrace the experience as a learning opportunity and contribute to making the tournament a success.
I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.
An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly and respectful .
As a debate judge, I am concerned with judging the evidence, the reasoning, and the presentation. The affirmative
side carries the burden of proof and must convince the judge with sufficient support for its argument. The negative side must convince the judge with the refutation of the opponent's argument. With this as a basis, I listen for logical, clear reasoning, presented in a well-organized, persuasive manner. I put great emphasis on delivery and how well the debater communicates his thesis and supportive ideas.
I would say that I am open to any argument as long as it is well thought out and clearly structured. It is also crucial that arguments are fairly easy to follow along.I would say that I am open to any argument as long as it is well thought out and clearly structured. It is also crucial that arguments are fairly easy to follow along.
My final decision as judge is based on the fundamental question: which side persuaded me to accept their stand on the proposition?
Please be loud and clear when speaking. Use hand gestures and intonation to keep me engaged. I want to be able to feel your passion, but your emotions should not seem forced. It should come out naturally. The speaker should be confident and well-prepared. Proper use of ethos, logos, and pathos is key. Make sure your contentions are clearly outlined. Make sure your rebuttals clearly address the contentions of your opponent. Make sure to be aggressive but respectful during the crossfires.
My approach to adjudication is rooted in fostering a dynamic and intellectually stimulating environment. I believe in the power of constructive dialogue, critical thinking, and effective communication as essential pillars of successful debating.
I prioritize fairness, objectivity, and impartiality, aiming to provide insightful feedback that not only highlights strengths but also offers constructive suggestions for improvement.
Ultimately, I view debates as an opportunity for intellectual growth, fun, and skill development.
Best of luck to all participants, and let the exchange of ideas commence!
Title: Evaluating Excellence: A Speech Competition Judging Paradigm by Marcus Sepo Jensen
Introduction:
As a speech competition judge, our paradigm centers on three key criteria: clarity of message, engagement with the audience, and effective delivery. We seek to reward speakers who present a clear and well-organized message, establish a genuine connection with the audience, and demonstrate exceptional delivery skills.
I. Clarity of Message:
Assess the clarity and coherence of the main message.
Evaluate the structure and organization of the speech.
Consider the speaker's ability to convey complex ideas in an understandable manner.
II. Engagement with the Audience:
Evaluate the speaker's ability to connect with the audience.
Assess inclusivity and the ability to engage a diverse audience.
Consider responsiveness to audience reactions.
III. Delivery:
Evaluate vocal skills, including modulation and clarity.
Assess body language, including posture and gestures.
Consider overall physical presence and confidence.
Originality and Creativity:
Evaluate the speaker's unique perspective and innovative insights.
Assess the use of creative elements such as language and rhetorical devices.
Consider the speaker's ability to evoke emotion and leave a lasting impression.
A good debater is one who speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible. I do not like spreading. It is unlikely you will win the debate if you are using this tactic.
For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.
Judge Philosophies
1.Judge’s Name:NDUMISO ENOCK LANGA
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?
As much as every part of the round structure is important I tend to discover the strength or weakness of the debaters during the cross fire and rebuttal speech,the dynamics in responding to questions asked and the comprehensive skills to your opponent’s arguments (this depicted by crushing points in reference to your opponents information presented which further depicts exceptional memory and logic reasoning).I love eloquent speakers who rely less on notes/reading,debators who know what they talk about and base their evidence on latest information.Team work is key,a team with the same energy and that blends perfectly without one outshining the other or one evidently lagging behind.
Some of the key elements to assist debaters:
Confidence
Preparation
Background research of the topic
Art-use of gestures,emotions where needed,facial expressions,Voice projection,movements,boldness,emphasis on key points,eye contact with the adjudicators.
9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I’m very friendly and accommodative ,debaters can consult me anytime if they need oral feedback or if they have any queries regarding the scoring or the notes on the rfd.I would love to assist where I possibly can .
Judge Portfolio:
World Impromptu Public Speaking Champion
TED & TEDx Coach | 2x TEDx Speaker
First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies
Specialising in Virtual, Hybrid, AR, VR & Holographic Presentations
Judged over 1000+ Speech Contests (International & Local - E.g. NSDA, USAD, HOSA, WSDA 21st Century, Star of Outlook TM, Startups etc)
17 years Public Speaking Experience
*Unique X-Factor: Trained with people with disabilities, refugees and rehabiliated prisoners, while judging related contests*
Students’ Achievements - Trained and Coached over 50000 students including CEOs and GM roles
Students winning World Champion in Public Speaking (Virtual), Startups, Debates etc.
Getting on the Guinness World Record, TED and TEDx Stage.
For Public Speaking related - I am here to know you, your ideas and your potential to help you grow to be a better speaker. I am also here to learn with you. (Open) I am open to any style and if you can be “yourself”, that’s a bonus!
For Debate: I look with a simple assessment: PREP - Point, Reason, Examples, Presentation Style and format.
After the first initial round of assessment: I will start looking critically at every point, tracing the credibility, relatability as well as your crossfire performance.
What stands out? What do I learn? What am I amazed by? What insights may have been overlooked? These are the questions that I will ask myself.
The tick-off: We respect you for your time, I hope that you respect us for our time. If you didn’t prepare, we will know!
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, youcan 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 inmaximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.
For the few years as a debate judge i have throughly enjoyed every momement of the tournaments ,and i have realized the critical role that i play in supporting students educational and competitive endevors .I apprriate a well put argument (debate )surported with a solid framework that provides justification for the topic in argument and the state importance of the argument . At the end of the debate i will determine who did the best job in debating ,which is centered on argumentation and not purely persuasive speaking. i consider the major arguments in the round and how they were refuted . As a judge i also consider the clarity of what the contastants are physically doing in the performance in order to also judge if the physical performance is enhancing the interpretation of the story . I do not let my personal views shape the outcome of the decision and i evaluate only the argumentation presented by the competing debaters .It is always my pleasure to give out constructive feedback at the end of the debate in order to help student improve and develope lacking skills , wishing everyone a successful debate and the best to every team !!!
I want to be able to follow the flow effortlessly and appreciate persuasive speakers,the perfect round consists of pleasant, polite competition.I am concerned with judging the facts, the justification, and the presentation as a debate judge. Each side has the burden of proof, and it is up to them to persuade me that their case is well-supported. The argument put forward by the adversary must be refuted in order for the negative side to persuade me. As a result, I pay attention for logical, convincing arguments that are presented in an orderly manner. I place a lot of focus on the speaker's delivery and how effectively he or she presents his or her argument. The round's safety and instructional value are most important to me. The team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact will ultimately receive my vote, on which I will mark my ballot.
The first speaking team's defense remains in place until it enters the frontline; but, in FF, it must be expanded. The only thing that matters to me is that the defense continues after the second rebuttal has been made. The burden of proof is on the side that must persuade me that itscase is well-supported. The negative side must persuade the judge bydisproving the opposing viewpoint. I look for logical, convincingreasoning that is presented in a clear, orderly manner using this as myfoundation. I place a lot of stress on the debater's delivery, the way heor she presents his argument, and the level of support.For me to evaluate offense, it must be mentioned in both the summary and the FF. More than merely a card tag or author name, offense warrants action.
I'm fairly tab, so feel free to read whatever you like, but be ready to defend your position and finally explain why it matters in the overall scheme of the round.
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.
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 winner.
Previous tournaments judged
1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai2019,20212022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. WSD Hangzhou offline 2023
6. Lozo Shanghai 2023
7. TOC Ice cup hangzhou 2023
8. TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai 2023
9. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
10. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu. 2024
11. TOC ASIA Flower Cup 2024
12. BASIS International Park Lane Harbour 2024
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
As a debate judge, l prioritise clear communication, logical argumentation, and effective use of evidence. l appreciate debaters who exhibit a thorough understanding of the topic and can articulate their positions coherently. Clarity and organisation are key; debaters should present well-structured cases with impactful introductions and conclusions. l value depth over breadth, so a few well-developed arguments with strong evidence will carry more weight than a multitude of superficial points. Debates should engage with their opponents' arguments, demonstrating critical thinking and the ability to rebut effectively.
I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.
Good luck to all!
As a creative judge, my paradigm follows an imaginative approach,embarking on a journey where ideas are celebrated, curiosity is fostered, and innovation is the cornerstone. I believe in inspiring an atmosphere that cherishes openness and unrestricted thinking.
As a judge, fairness is paramount in my evaluations. I consider only the actual arguments made by each debater, without biases toward other factors. Clear rationale is provided so competitors understand how to continuously develop. Standards are applied consistently across all rounds under my purview.
Justice also guides my assessments. Impactful claims matter more than volume of assertions. Debaters addressing the resolution as written will not be disadvantaged compared to those straying beyond the core topic. Accommodations are made so no participants face judging disadvantages outside of their control.
Moreover, my feedback aims to coach rather than critique personally. Suggestions target debating techniques specifically, with illustrative examples from the performed debate. Effective methods observed are noted to help debaters recognize useful strategies to refine.
Most importantly, I begin commentary positively by acknowledging strengths shown before critiquing weaknesses. Competitors are motivated by progress acknowledged rather than past performances emphasized. An encouraging tone, eye contact and smile accompany all of my feedback delivery. Comments center debaters’ focus on practicing skills through constructive practice instead of “winning.”
Through maintaining fairness, justice, coaching and positivity as cornerstones in my judging approach, I aim to assist all debaters in building confidence in their argumentation abilities. My paradigm supports continuous growth by providing understanding on ways to sharpen reasoning in future opportunities for applied experience. Most of all, an encouraging environment is created where participation itself is rewarding.
My judging paradigm is rooted in an impartial and meticulous evaluation process, adhering strictly to the predefined terms and rules of each debate. I prioritize clarity over speed, recognizing the significance of a contestant's ability to articulate a persuasive argument within the allocated time frame. Emphasizing a preference for well-structured presentations, I value a seamless flow of ideas, directness, and attention to detail. The ideal performance, in my view, captivates the audience through a compelling and convincing presentation, ensuring a winning edge for the debater who successfully combines precision with persuasion.
As a speech judge, I prioritize clear communication, logic, and respect. I am open to various frameworks but value clarity above all. During the rounds, I actively flow the speech. Quality evidence is crucial, and I assess its relevance, reliability, and recency.
Speaker needs to display clarity, persuasion, strategy, and correctness.
Ultimately, my decision rests on evaluating speech content, delivery method and language choices. I encourage a focus on quality, constructive dialogue, and sportsmanship throughout the session.
I am a seasoned PF debate enthusiast and judge, stressing the significance of clarity and comprehension in debates, cautioning against aggressive behavior while advocating for a respectful tone. With over 5 years of experience judging university and high school tournaments, I emphasize evaluation criteria of strong arguments, evidence, persuasion skills, and engagement with opposing viewpoints to determine the debate winner. I encourage debaters to present clear, concise arguments supported by reputable evidence and to foster respectful dialogue for a meaningful exchange of ideas.
I will reward confident, well spoken, organized and logical arguments.
Confidence: An individual who is making use of verbal and non-verbal communication. Speaking loudly, clearly, with appropriate pace, uses movement as a tool, and uses appropriate hand gestures to make their point.
Well spoken: For one to be considered well spoken you must make use of academic language. A wide variety of vocabulary will go a long way. This will also include being polite when asking questions or commenting on the opposing side.
Organized: Means that there is a clear flow to your individual speeches. An example of this could be the following:
-Introduction
-transition
-1st point
-example/statistic/etc.
-transition
-conclusion.
Logical arguments: Imply that as the speaker you are not claiming the information to be based on personal opinion or feelings. Saying things like "I think.." or "In my opinion.." would be examples of opiniated expression. Arguments are also supported by an appropriate amount of evidence such as quotes and statistics from credible sources.
I will not reward: Speakers who attempt to insult, degrade, or otherwise belittle the opposing team. Speakers who speak too quickly or unclearly in an attempt to ensure the opposing side cannot understand the argument will also not be tolerated. If I cannot understand what you are saying, your argument may be invalidated.
I am not new to judging speech and debate, but I am new to this format. I will value well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. While pathos is also crucial in the art of persuasion, I will not enjoy any hints of derision or sarcasm directed at opposing teams during debate rebuttal.
For interpretive events, I will value originality and passion, while clear delivery is also important.
SEKO EVANCE
Age: 25 Years
1. Debate Experience: I have participated in a variety of debates for over 2 years, covering a range of topics and formats.
2. Fast-Talking: I believe fast-talking can be effective as long as it's clear, audible, and maintains clarity. The speed of speech should not compromise the quality of arguments.
3. Aggressiveness: Respectful and focused aggressiveness is acceptable in debates, but personal attacks should be avoided. The emphasis should be on the strength of arguments rather than attacking opponents.
4. Determining the Winner: The winner of the debate is typically determined by the team's ability to defend their argument with evidence, logical reasoning, clarity, and persuasiveness. Effective counterpoints and responses to opponents' arguments are also crucial.
5. Additional Notes: Debaters should be clear, concise, and support their points with credible evidence. Focus on logical reasoning and avoid personal attacks.
6. Judging Experience: I have judged between 0 to 5 tournaments in the past year.
7. Note-Taking: I try to take comprehensive notes on all aspects of the debate.
8. Summary Speech: The main goal of the summary speech is to highlight the major points of clash and demonstrate how your team won those points.
Scale of 1-10:
9. Importance of Defining the Topic: 9 - Defining the topic clearly and accurately is crucial for decision-making.
10. Importance of Framework: 8 - Framework provides structure and guides the debate, influencing decision-making significantly.
11. Importance of Crossfire: 7 - Crossfire can provide valuable insights and clarifications but may not be as decisive as other factors.
12. Importance of Weighing: 8 - Weighing arguments and impacts helps in determining the stronger position and ultimately the winner.
13. Importance of Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication: 8 - Persuasive speaking and effective non-verbal communication contribute to the overall argument.
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 BBSZ!
My paradigm is rooted in creating an educational and fair environment that promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and respectful discourse. I believe that the purpose of competitive debate extends beyond winning or losing; it serves as a platform for intellectual growth and the development of essential life skills.
In evaluating debates, my primary standard for decision-making is the clarity and strength of argumentation. I place significant emphasis on well-reasoned, evidence-supported arguments that contribute to a coherent and logical case. Effective communication skills, including clarity of speech, organization, and the ability to articulate complex ideas, are paramount.
I also value strategic thinking and adaptability in debaters. The ability to respond to opponents' arguments with agility, while maintaining a consistent and coherent case, demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic. Flexibility and strategic use of cross-examination and rebuttal time can be powerful tools when employed thoughtfully.
In addition to substance, I prioritize fairness and respectful engagement. Debaters should demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethical considerations in argumentation. Respectful cross-examination, adherence to time limits, and a genuine willingness to engage with opposing perspectives contribute positively to the overall quality of the debate.
As part of my decision-making process, I consider the quality and relevance of evidence presented. Debaters should use credible sources to support their claims, and the evidence should be contextualized effectively within the broader argument.
While style is not the primary focus of my judging paradigm, effective delivery and presentation can enhance the overall impact of a debater's case. However, style should complement substance rather than overshadow it.
In providing feedback, I aim to offer constructive criticism that guides students toward improvement. I highlight strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing areas for growth and providing specific suggestions for enhancement.
Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to contribute to the educational experience of the participants by fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating atmosphere, promoting fair and thoughtful decision-making, and encouraging the development of critical thinking and communication skills.
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.
JUDGE PARADIGM
NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI
AGE: 23 YEARS
CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.
DEBATE ETIQUETTE
Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.
DECISION MAKING PROCESS
During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.
I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.
SPEAKER POINTS
When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.
Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.
I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.
I value well-structured arguments that directly address the resolution. I prefer debaters who speak clearly and confidently, and who engage with their opponents' arguments respectfully. I appreciate the use of real-world examples and current events to support arguments. I am open to various debate styles, but I expect debaters to maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. I am open to speed in delivery as long as it enhances the overall quality of the debate. Overall, I prioritize persuasive and impactful communication in evaluating debate rounds.
Cherry Zhao