Last changed on
Mon February 12, 2024 at 3:40 AM HKT
Case Construction: I value well-structured cases that present clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Arguments should be signposted clearly, making it easy to follow along. I appreciate when debaters articulate the significance of their arguments and how they interact with their opponent's case.
Evidence and Empiricism: Quality evidence is paramount. I expect debaters to present statistical support and explain its relevance and impact on the debate. Misrepresenting evidence or failing to provide sources upon request will negatively affect my assessment of your credibility.
Clash and Engagement: A good debate is characterised by direct engagement with the opponent's arguments. I look for teams that can effectively refute and dismantle their opponent's case through logical reasoning and evidence rather than simply restating their case. Rebuttals should be specific and address the core of the opposing argument.
Delivery: Clear and concise delivery enhances persuasiveness. Speed is acceptable as long as it does not sacrifice clarity. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their arguments, making it easy for the judge and the audience to follow.
Crossfire: I view crossfire as an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extend arguments. I appreciate debaters who ask pointed questions and provide direct answers. Civility and respect during crossfire are non-negotiable.
Final Focus: The final focus should crystallize why your team wins the round, tying back to the framework or weighing mechanism established earlier. Be clear and concise, prioritizing your strongest arguments and why they outweigh your opponent's.
Decision Rationale: My decision will be based on the flow, considering which team has effectively established their case, utilized evidence more persuasively, and engaged more effectively in refutation and rebuttal. I value strategic argumentation that demonstrates understanding the round's key issues and how they interact.
Feedback: I believe in constructive feedback that helps debaters grow. I aim to provide specific and actionable comments that focus on both strengths and areas for improvement.
Conclusion: As a judge, I aim to foster an environment where debaters feel challenged and supported in their growth. I look forward to rounds that showcase the debaters’ ability to argue and their passion for the topics they are discussing.