Tabroom.com

NHSDLC 2023 Judge Training Tournament

2022 — Online, CN

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Bandzenyuy Abdul Sallam Hire None

ABRAR AHMED Hire

Muhammad Ajmal Hire None

Nomun Altan-Ochir Hire None

Kwesi Amponsah Hire

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 12:52 AM CST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is my paradigm

Fawad ASLAM Hire None

Caesar Augustus Hire

Terry Lydia Awuor Hire None

Humza Aziz Hire None

Colin Barrett Hire None

ariunzaya Batgerel Hire None

Gankhulug Bayaraa Hire None

Brian Panashe Bwanya Hire

Dennis Chaponda Hire None

Chris Chen Hire

Ruowei Chen Hire None

Sally Chen Hire None

Ting Chen Hire

Last changed on Wed May 10, 2023 at 10:32 PM CST

This is Ting. I currently studied English atBeijing Foreign Studies University.

First of all, for my judging philosophy :

1)I hold the belief that clarity and quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of evidence. A well-elaborated argument will be valued over several trivial arguments without much detailed illustration. So please put more emphasis on your main arguments and well-develop them. The rebuttals to the flaw in opponent’s logic, if valid or not being response by opponent effectively, would effect the quality of the arguments of the opponent. However, when the quality of arguments from both sides is evenly matched, the quantity of valuable points will be weighted.

2)Both theoretical and empirical evident are welcomed. However, I prefer some specific examples or clear logic chain being provided to prove the validity of the theoretical arguments. Empirical evident would also be expected to be supported by accurate sources, detailed examples and logic behind.

3)Topicality is under great considerations as well. Try to focus the arguments on topic without irrelevant tangents.

4)I would prefer a clear framework in constructive speech. For rebuttal speech, I mainly focus on clashes with consistent logical flow. Main arguments restated, impact weighing of clashes are expected in summary speech. Highlighting and emphasis on main clashes would be specially paid attention to in the final focus.

For my style and delivery preferences:

1)Speed: I don’t mind speed as long as you made your speech clearly. However, I do suggest and prefer clarity over speed. It is preferred that you clearly separate your points with signal words or proper pauses. If I fail to get your argument clearly, I will stop flowing.

2)Be polite and civil: I understand that sometimes getting emotional and aggressive is inevitable during the debate. However, interruptions are only allowed during crossfires and any speech of discrimination and personal attack are prohibited.

CK CHEUNG Hire

Gaurav Chhetri Hire None

Annah Chibondo Hire None

Wilson Chipangura Hire

Mandy Chenqian Cui Hire

Belyse Cyuzuzo Hire

Liza Dama Hire

AMANI DAVID Hire None

Sam Dutta Hire None

George Elton Hire

Rachel Fang Hire None

Pluie Fu Hire None

Julian Gagnon Hire

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:21 PM CST

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.

from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

SOPHIE GITAU Hire

Martin Grant Hire

Alex Gu Hire None

BING GU Hire None

Letwin Gundani Hire None

Alan Guo Hire

Jason Guo Hire None

Betty Han Hire None

Rita He Hire None

Lily-Rose Hikaru Hire None

Bonnie Bisui Hong Hire None

Gloria Yutong Hu Hire None

Felicia Huang Hire None

Jamy Huang Hire

Mike Huang Hire None

Idris Ibrahim Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 4:38 PM UTC

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Cyrus Isaboke Hire None

Amira Jaques Hire None

Khloe Jargalsaikhan Hire

Xu Jenny Hire None

Cordelia Leyan Jin Hire None

Thumelo Jonathan Hire None

Lynmary Wadzanai Kagoro Hire

Humaira Kalsoom Hire None

Usman KHAN Hire

Mwika Kiarie Hire None

Tina Kileo Hire

Tony Kimani Hire

Trinity Kitchen Hire None

Mateusz Klepacki Hire

Lollita Koech Hire None

Vijay Kushwaha Hire None

Tracy Kuwana Hire None

Tinashe Kuzhanga Hire None

Francis Kwarteng Hire None

Jiesong Lan Hire None

NDUMISO LANGA Hire

Last changed on Thu May 2, 2024 at 5:08 AM CST

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 .

LAWAN LAWAN Hire None

NGOC QUOC THU LE Hire None

Emily LI Hire None

Lisa Li Hire None

Lricy Li Hire None

Pinjing Li Hire None

Shuangyan Li Hire None

Taylor Li Hire None

Tracy Li Hire None

Andrew Li (NU) Hire

Last changed on Sat June 22, 2024 at 3:56 PM CDT

anli+debate@u.northwestern.edu for the email chain

Hello! I'm a public forum competitor from the Chinese circuit with over 100 rounds of judging experience, over 150 rounds of competitive experience, and more than three years of experience providing coaching services in one way or another (e.g., preparing research briefs, judging mock debate rounds, etc.). I've collated probably 500,000 words of cards in my debate career. In total, I have more hours in PF debate than my entire Steam library combined.

If you were coached in the Chinese circuit, either read and understand my entire paradigm if you want a fair chance of winning or strike me. It’s your choice.

Concise Version PF 2023

If you use clashes you'll probably lose. Winning a clash NEVER equals winning a debate, even if you win more clashes. Instead of using this lazy way, I expect all teams to collapse in summary (how you do this is up to you) which is gonna teach you how to actually critically think instead of just read a script.
I also expect all teams to weigh in summary
2nd Rebuttal MUST frontline unless you read theory to justify why not (which skews your time even more, just frontline)
I will ignore you in cross
If you don't READ (as in, SAY OUT LOUD) the author AND year when introducing your evidence, I'll write on my RFD that you had ZERO evidence. Don't even bothering contesting this, I write down the year and an abbreviation of the author the second you say it so just get good
Extensions must have author OR author and year
Traditional PF debaters are statistically more likely to lose because of how much I dislike traditional PF debate
I can handle spreading but am also open to spreading theory
I'll vote on new theory added in second final focus if abuse is severe enough

Before the round starts, you have the option and opportunity to tell me four things, all of which I highly encourage:

Flow preference. On paper or digital? If digital, do you want me to do it on Google Sheets and share it with you after the round? If on paper, do you want me to scan the flow and give you a copy after the round? If offline and you want me to flow on paper, will you provide the paper? Keep in mind that my digital flows often have columns dedicated to the issues I have with your arguments, e.g. "doesn't engage", so these are quite useful to see what I interpreted correctly and incorrectly.
What color do you want to be on my flow? If I'm flowing on paper, I'll give you options. If digital, you can choose any of 16777216 colors, but keep in mind choosing an unreadable color means I'll drop all of your arguments. I'm serious. If it helps, my spreadsheets are always in light mode, so I encourage choosing a darker color (standard red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, black, and cyan are all safe options).
If you want feedback after the round, do you want it orally or do you want me to give it to you later via email/text/snail-mail/etc? The latter allows for way more detail but I might... forget some semantics of the round
Pronouns

"Pre Theory" (not enforcing these rn)

The following two shells are presumed as true by me before the round even starts, without anyone needing to read them. This is to make the round more inclusive and fair and reduce timesucks. The default voter for all of these shells is "drop the debater."

TW theory. Teams must read trigger warnings for arguments that involve violence, r*pe, gore, transphobia, homophobia, etc. including an opt out. I'll exclude broader "death" from this because those are common and rather vague, but if a team believes death should be included as well, you can read theory to implicate this as the case.
Pronouns theory. You must use they/them for all debaters and judges in the round unless specified otherwise. If you violate this on accident, simply correct yourself, but if not, I will drop you.

Tech vs Truth

I want to say I'm tech over truth but objectively I'm split 80/20. If you read a crazy argument like (insert your argument), there are two possibilities of how I interpret it:

If you have a lot of evidence, even if it's fake, as long as you read the source and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I'll basically take your best case scenario. Once I voted for extinction in elims (and it was a 2-1 for them) because they had reasonable evidence and the opposing engagement with the scenario was inadequate. But if you get caught, you autolose (see evidence ethics).
If your links are assertions, expect me to not buy a single one.

Basically, if you have cards, I'm tech over truth; if you read an assertion, I'm truth over tech.

Speech Burdens

Second rebuttal must frontline unless you read a theoretical reason why not. Summary must extend defense. Impacts to be weighed must be in both summary and final focus in order for me to consider them, including the entire link chain + all cards. This is to incentivize all debaters to collapse.
Final focus must both (1) match summary and (2) have every single impact you want me to vote on. To have an impact doesn't just mean extending the impact, it also includes extending all responses to turns, all links, all internal links, and uniqueness – and all must be carded.
If second rebuttal doesn't frontline, your defense is sticky through first summary. In general, all defense (turns, delinks) are sticky until responded to. However, all defense needed to win my vote must be extended into final focus (this generally forces the second speakers to collapse, which is good imo).
I will ignore both teams during cross.
When you extend impacts in summary, you must extend the entire link chain including all cards.

Evidence Ethics

Super Important. MUST READ. According to the NSDA's official rules found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf: (1) if you add ellipses to your card, you autolose with 0 speaks; (2) if you distort even a single card, even unintentionally, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (3) if you can't produce a card or website for requested evidence, EVEN ONCE, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (4) if you clip your card and you get caught, you autolose with 0 speaks. I'll expand on this with two points: (1) if your opponent wants your source and you only send a URL and exclude author/year, you autolose though I'll still give you speaks; (2) if both teams violate these guidelines, the first team to violate them loses. And for the record, (1) if the tournament you're at doesn't let me give you zero speaks, I'll be marking you as having FORFEITED THE ROUND; (2) this applies to ALL DEBATERS, even those who are novices or who did so on accident because the only way you will ever learn from a mistake is confronting it head on.

Pulling from the same link, if you believe your opponent is falsifying or severely cherry-picking evidence, you have the right to stop the round AT ANY TIME, including during an opponent speech. If your opponent is indeed lying about the evidence, the round immediately ends and you win. If your opponent is NOT lying, the round immediately ends and you LOSE.

Three more definitional things:

Cards. If you don't read the author and year on first introduction, it's not a card.
Extensions. If you don't read the author on extension, it's not an extension.
Cites. If you don't send author, year, and place where somebody could find the source (URL, DOI, title of the book), it's not a citation.

Rhetorical Choices

If you use abusively harmful rhetoric (e.g., racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist) intentionally, i.e., you knowingly extend it, it's part of your card, tagline, etc., I will autolose you even if your opponent doesn't point it out. If it's by mistake and you realize you've said something wrong and correct it, no penalty.
If you say "him or her" or "he or she" or something instead of a gender neutral pronoun I will drop you for it.

Frameworks

If your framework doesn't have a warranted justification, I'll drop your framework. If neither side does, I'll use modified CBA: extinction always comes first, structural violence second, and then util.
CBA doesn't need a warrant

Theory

Three things to say about theory:

Theory ALWAYS comes first. NO exceptions.
If your theory shell doesn't have reasonable justifications (in the standards section or somewhere reasonable), I'll consider voting on it, but I'll really hate you for it and I'll dock your speaks.
Disclosure. Please do it. But if you read reasons why not, then I don't care.

Speed

I can comprehend spreading and will say "clear" when it's too fast, except when banned by the tournament. If you decide to spread, there are three things to note:

If your opponent reads "speed bad" or "speed theory" or "clear theory" or whatever and you don't clear, you're going to lose.
You must give me a speech doc if you're going to go above 300wpm otherwise I will visibly roll my eyes at you, stop flowing, and autolose you (the exception is if you're really clear with your reading and I can't tell you're going so fast).
In circuits where speech docs/disclosure are uncommon, you alone will bear full consequences if I decide to stop flowing due to speed.

Speaks

I start at a 28.0 and go up or down based on strategic choices. If you extend every impact into summary, expect your speaks to dip. If you collapse better than I ever could, expect your speaks to shoot up. If you want a bonus:

Bring me a soda (if offline) and you'll get a 0.3 point bonus
If you physically turn every time you say turn, you get a 0.3 speak bonus
If your virtual background (if online) is related to, relevant to, and boosts the rhetorical appeal of your argument, you get a 0.3 speak bonus.
If you refer to every single author (repeat, every single one) with they/them pronouns, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus. My ears are basically tuned to he/him or she/her because of my own identity, so I'll know if you use the wrong pronoun. The exception is if you have additional evidence to show one of your authors' pronoun preferences, such as their Twitter page.
If your summary or final focus starts with a funny joke, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus.

The max bonus per round, per speaker is 1.2 points for offline tournaments and 0.9 points for online tournaments. This means you still need good strategy for a 30.

Non-PF Argumentation in PF

The following are my stance(s) on non-traditional arguments/styles commonly seen in LD/CX:

Plans. PF rules state that plans are banned, but I... disagree. If the resolution is really broad, I don't see why you can't have a plan. But you need to at least try to prove probability. A super absurd, stupid plan won't fly in PF because that's not what this format is for. So reading "CP: The USFG should give everyone Spotify Premium" just isn't going to convince me. At least try to be topical. Can't say I'm opposed to a plan/cp of something that's actually likely to happen.
NIBs. If you can execute it well, sure. Remember not to drop it in summary or final focus.
PICs. If the resolution is super wacky like uh uh uh "Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all illicit drugs." and you read a states CP, I really don't see why I shouldn't give you credit for it. As long as you prove (a) your CP is probable, (b) it's exclusive, and (c) it outweighs, I'm not against giving you credit for PICs.
Ks. Honestly why not? As long as it's coherent, I'll give you credit for kritiks. However, if you read some niche philosophy K that I'm not familiar with, you risk the entire argument flying over my head, and if that happens, you're taking responsibility.

Finally, I won't memorize the things I write in my paradigm – just know that I'll enforce certain points more often than others and be more lenient depending on the tournament I'm at/round quality/etc. And, if you game my paradigm to win rather than become a better debater, you'll be the one who regrets it.

Chloe Liao Hire None

Emma Jiayi Liu Hire None

Louis Zhancheng Liu Hire

Sia Liu Hire None

Dannessa Lotikena Hire None

Lilibet Lu Hire None

Veronica Ludaka Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:55 AM HKT

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

Veronica Luo Hire None

Jakub Madej Hire None

Angelica Mai Hire None

Gerald Mandengenda Hire None

Olivia Felicity Miralles Hire None

McDonald Mpundu Hire

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 1:06 AM CST

Age: 27

College: JIANGSU UNIVERSITY

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Economics and International Trade Student / Business Owner.

How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

- 6-10

How many notes do you take during a debate?

- I try to take notes on literally everything

What is the main job of the summary speech?

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

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?

- 3/10

How important is framework to your decision-making?

- 7/10

How important is crossfire in your decision-making?

- 5/10

How important is weighing in your decision-making?

- 8/10

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

- 4/10

How fast should students speak?

- 1-10 (feel free to speak as fast as you please)

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

-High school Debate team (2 years)

-Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2020.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2021.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2022.

How do you consider fast-talking?

-It can be a great skill and strategy to deploy during the debate.

-I consider speaking at around 300 words per minute to be fast, of course words should be clearly pronounced and consistent throughout the speech.

-I type at 100 wpm, so you can be confident I will be getting down everything you say.

How do you consider aggressiveness?

-When the debater is confrontational or actively attacks the opponent’s arguments (expected)

-On the extreme side, when the debater resorts to excessive interruptions, aggression, shouting or personal attacks towards their opponents to undermine their arguments (not tolerated).

How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Here are the 3 points I use to determine the winner:

-Clarity and organization: The debater who presents their arguments in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.

-Strong arguments and evidence: The strength of the arguments presented, supported by relevant and compelling evidence.

-Rebuttal and refutation: Effectively addressing and countering opponents' arguments is crucial. The ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' positions, provide counterarguments, and refute their points with sound reasoning and evidence.

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

-Mutual respect and Politeness go a long way.

-Respect time.

Latifa Mtawali Hire

Chanda Mubanga Hire None

MORRIS MUCHANGI Hire None

MUTSA MUFARO Hire

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:52 PM EDT

1. Judge’s Name :Mutsa Mufaro
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?
I decide who wins the debate by looking at how well a team presents theirarguments and counters their opponents. I pay attention to the strength of theirpoints and how they respond to the other side's arguments.I enter a debate witha blank mind, setting aside my prior knowledge and personal opinions. My
judgment is solely based on the arguments and information presented by thedebaters.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
Take the time to thoroughly analyze and counter your opponents' arguments.Point out any fallacies or weaknesses in their reasoning. Additionally debatesshould be respectful and focus on the substance of arguments rather thanpersonal attacks. I believe constructive and respectful exchanges lead to a more
meaningful debate experience. Lastly fast talking is fine, but it becomes aproblem when speakers talk so fast that their points can't be heard. It's importantto find a balance between speaking quickly and being understandable, so that asa judge I can follow and understand what's being said. Speaking too fast shouldn't
make the message hard to understand.

DAVIES MUNASHE Hire

David Munyao Hire

Marcus Muteedzi Hire

Francis Mutemwa Hire

TITUS MUTHONI Hire None

Waithanji Mutiti Hire

Pius Mwangi Hire

Calvin Nevanji Hire

Jojo Ngalula Hire

Valentines Ngorima Hire

rosemary nyambura Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 9:50 PM EAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brenda Onyango Hire

Mia Jia Pan Hire None

BLESSING PETER Hire

Wei Pi Hire None

Wenzhen Qian Hire None

Cecilia Qin Hire

Jiayi Qiu Hire

Akvile Radauskaite Hire None

Aaraaf Rasheed Hire None

Qasim Rauf Hire

Last changed on Sun July 7, 2024 at 5:20 AM EDT

K@sh

Age: 30 years

University: NCWU

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

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

I have participated in academic debates, environmental conferences, and training and development-related debates. My debate career spans nearly three years as a professional, following the completion of my degree. I also engaged in debate activities intermittently during my educational journey.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in debates, also called "spreading," means talking really fast to say a lot in a short time. People do this to share many arguments and evidence, make good use of time, and sometimes confuse their opponents. But whether it's okay or not depends on the debate's rules and what's normal in that debate community. Speaking quickly can be good for covering a lot of ground, but it can also make things hard to understand for judges and the audience. So, debaters should speak in a way that fits the rules and what's expected in that particular debate. If it's clear and easy to follow, it's usually fine.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I consider aggressiveness as a factor in evaluating debaters. It can be effective when it conveys passion and assertiveness in presenting arguments and engaging withopponents. However, it must remain respectful and professional, avoiding personal attacks and derogatory language. Aggressiveness should be accompanied by well-reasoned arguments and effective rebuttals, and it should enhance audience engagement without causing confusion or hostility. Rule adherence is crucial, and excessive aggressiveness, such as interruptions or dominating the discussion, should be avoided to maintain a balanced and productive debate environment.

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

As a debate judge, I evaluate debaters based on a set of key criteria, including the strength of arguments, effectiveness of rebuttals, clarity and organization, use of credible evidence, respectful conduct, time management, adaptability, adherence to the debate format and awareness of resolution. The winning debater or team excels in these areas by effectively presenting their case, countering opposing arguments, following the rules, and maintaining a respectful demeanor. Clarity, credible evidence, impact full rebuttals, and adaptability are particularly valued. It's essential for debaters to tailor their approach to the specific debate's rules and expectations, as judges may have different preferences.

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

As a judge, I value well-structured and clear arguments that are supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning. I appreciate debaters who engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, focusing on the substance of the argument rather than personal attacks. Please be concise and to the point in your responses, and avoid going off-topic. It's important to address your opponent's points directly and provide counterarguments or rebuttals where necessary. Additionally, while passion is important, I encourage debaters to maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Remember that clarity, relevance, and logical coherence are key to winning the debate in my view.

6. How many Lincoln- Douglas Debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
A. 0-5

7. How many tournament have you judged in the past year?

6-10

8. How many notes d you take during a debate?

I write down the points that I think are important.

9. What is the main job of the summary?

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

10. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? (1 -10)

10

11. How important is framework to your decision making?
9

12. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
7
13. How important is weighing in your decision making?
7
14. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in decision making?
10
15. How fast should student speak?
8

Shemar Reid Hire None

AASIM SAEED Hire None

Shakespear Samu Hire

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:38 AM HKT

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.

Abigail Samwini Hire

Daniel Sanchez Rivera Hire None

PHILIPPA SERESERE Hire None

Millie Shao Hire None

Kathy Yinuo Shen Hire None

Sunnie Shen Hire None

Auster Shi Hire

Jiayi Shi Hire None

Tapiwa Singini Hire None

Moirah Sithole Hire

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 5:03 AM EDT

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 .

Marlena Soltysinska Hire

Alvin Stanley Hire

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 4:48 PM EDT

I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.

I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

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

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

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

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

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

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

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.

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

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

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

Claudia Chen Sun Hire None

tanya svikiro Hire

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 12:39 AM EDT

I emphasizes the importance of Claims that are backed up with warrants that are clear. I prefer arguments that are logical and evidence-based as well as effective rebuttals and clashes, effective oral and non-verbal communication, respect and sportsmanship in debates. They encourage critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability in argumentation. Nevertheless l’m open to various debate formats and encourages debaters to adhere to specific rules. They also provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills. I believe that debates should be fair, educational, and respectful, with a focus on fairness, educational value, and respectful engagement.

Judge philosophy survey

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]
a. I have never judged debate before.
b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]
a. I have never debated competitively before.
b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
c. I debated other formats for less than a year.
d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]
a. I coach debate and have researched this topic
b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]
a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
c. I’m not sure.
d. Other (please specify)
It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]
a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.
c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
d. Other (Please Specify)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.
Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity.

Murphy Tang Hire None

Muhammad Tariq Hire

Tinaye Tsinakwadi Hire

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 7:32 PM HKT

Tinaye Tsinakwadi

Tournaments judged in the past year

more than 11 tournaments in the past year
seasoned judge (+5 years of judging experience)

How many notes I take during the debate

I try to take notes on everything.
Details are essential to me, and I will analyze every major contention and write it down.

The main job of the summary speech

Highlight major points of the clash and show how your team won.
I prefer for summary speeches to be in retrospect of the entire debate.
So less about raising arguments, but rather putting arguments to rest.

On a scale of 1-10, How important is defining the topic to my decision making (2)

Unless it is an addition on top of the common definition.
I prefer the standard definition, not arguing over technicalities.

How important is a framework to my decision making (5)

more concerned with the consistency of your framework
is it aligning well with your arguments
can I trace back your decision-making to that framework etc?

How important is crossfire in my decision making (6)

mostly using it to validate your arguments.
use it to check whether your points hold weight.
also to see which contention is better, should they clash.
can be more crucial, in checking whether you can stand by your arguments, in the face of opposition.

How important is weighing in my decision making (8)

Being able to compare and contrast is important to me.
I need to know you can address your opponent's points and still show why yours are more important.

How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in my decision-making (2)

It's better to sell your arguments.
I encourage you to do it but won't penalize you if you don't.

How fast should students speak (7)

I don't mind speed, but be eloquent and deliver your arguments well.
If you are taking gasps of air, you are speaking too fast between speeches.
Slightly above average would be the ideal speed for me.

Eric Tukei Hire

Rahat Ullah Hire

Arlena w Hire

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:49 PM CST

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.

Annika Wang Hire

Anthony Wang Hire

Eliana Wang Hire None

Linhan Wang Hire None

Michelle Wang Hire None

Tianyi Wang Hire None

Veronica Wang Hire None

William Wang Hire

Last changed on Fri June 2, 2023 at 8:42 PM CDT

I debated for 5 years for VDA in PF and currently debate for Rice University in NPDA Parli.

Please include me in the email chain: ww53@rice.edu

Some general expectations for rounds:

1.) The singular most important thing for me is terminalization, warranting and weighing. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. PREETY PRETTY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TERMINALIZE IMPACTS.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument.

3.) Must frontline offense in Second Rebuttal. I view any dropped offense that are read in first rebuttal, ie turns, as conceded if second rebuttal does not frontline. Second summary is way too late to present any new frontlines or responses.

4.) Progressive Argumentation. I am familiar with progressive argumentation such as Ks, Ts, etc. If you feel the necessity to run these argumentations, I will evaluate them. If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

5.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. If the arguments that both teams present to me are uncomparative, then I will be forced to intervene. One team will be unhappy.

6.) Tech > Truth. I view debate as a strategic academic game with arguments as the game’s pieces. I flow and will vote on anything so long as it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against other arguments in the round, and is not offensive or exclusionary. I default to Neg on presumption if there is no offense from either team. I vote strictly off the flow.

7.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said.

8.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low.

9.) I do not flow cross. If there is something that you think is important that came up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Nonetheless, the last thing that I wish to see in cross is people yelling over each other. So please be polite.

10.) Racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

11.) Speed. I am fairly comfortable with speed but definitely not comfortable flowing anything that is going Mach 5 speed. Please ensure that you are clear or send a speech doc before hand!

12.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Every reference to Twoset will boost your speaks by 0.1.

Above all, be nice and have fun!

Hamza Wasif Hire None

Jane Xueyi Wen Hire None

Hassan Whitfield Hire None

McIan Wilkins Hire None

Joey Wong Hire

Rachel Wu Hire None

Stephen Wukela Hire None

Jin Xia Hire None

Cynthia Xiao Hire None

Arvin Xu Hire

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 12:49 AM EDT

I define myself as a Flay Judge, and most of my judging experiences have been in public speaking and storytelling.

Debate Judging background

· 2022 FALL THE 4^th National Invitational Forensics Tournament NIFT

· Public Forum NHSDLC HZ Training

· 2022 NHSDLC Fall Hangzhou Tournament

· Harvard Asian Junior Debate Tournament China National

How I judge

I base it mostly on which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument. I deliberate on the overall presentation based on the arguments presented in the round.

Other specifics about my judging style

I don't mind if you speak too fast, I’m not going to say anything until I've been given permission to speak or interfere. It's just that, I won't be able to validate your arguments if I can't comprehend what you're saying, unless you are very articulate, and your pronunciation is clear and accurate. If you spread, I'd still try to take note, however, I’m very fussy with articulation so if I won't understand you, I’d probably just stop flowing. Even though I do signposting, I also use dictator software or an app to thoroughly follow your argumentation, so if you spread and are disorderly, so is my flow or I’d rather just stop flowing. Take note that attempting to win just because your opponent cannot answer all of your points due to your spreading indicates that you do not believe your arguments will stand up during a debate.
As judges attempt to dismiss their own biases and experiences when judging, and we may or may not be knowledgeable on the issue, it all comes down to how you present your arguments or reasoning. You may have done a fantastic six-page study but knowing how you compress ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A TWO-MINUTE SPEECH is what matters. Please do not just say, "So judge, please vote for us," to fill in the gaps between your closing arguments, especially if it is a one-on-one debate. Furthermore, the summary is where improvements are most crucial. In summation, if you don't expound on things, don't bring them up in the final focus.
I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I may intervene on behalf of opposing teams. Be courteous, especially in times of conflict. If you're unsure if you should be sassy, don't be. I will deduct points for impolite behavior because this is an educational exercise.
Try not to be very scripted, and learn to rephrase your notes. Depending on how much time is left I may or may not provide oral RFDs, as I may also need more time to evaluate my flow.

Patrick Xu Hire

Ryan Xu Hire None

Andy Zhuoran Yang Hire None

Henry Yang Hire None

Shellyn Yang Hire None

Lucy Lu Yao Hire None

Neil Yao Hire

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 11:14 PM HKT

Name: Neil Yao

College: Master’s Degree at Duke University, Fuqua School of Business. Bachelor’s Degree at Peking University, National School of Development (NSD)

Current Occupancy: Professional Debate Coach, Experienced College Application Counselor

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

My speech and debate career has been 10 years. I have participated in all kinds of debate competitions including NSDA PF debate, Singapore College BP debate (impromptu), WSC debate, Shenzhen EDS Debate Competition, etc.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

I do not recommend speaking more than 180 words per minute since such speed would compromise your clarity of speaking. After all, you don’t want me to miss some of your important arguments or rebuttals.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I accept being aggressive, but being aggressive does not mean being impolite. If I feel that one speaker is intimidating or threatening the other, I would pause to warn the speaker and consider punishment of his/her speaker point.

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

Determine the winner of the debate: I will narrow the whole round of debate in three clash points (sometimes fewer or more, depending on the situation), and I will also look at arguments that are not responded to. I will only consider your analysis, evidence, and impact. I will look at analysis and evidence first to determine which team has done obviously better to win the clash point, but when both teams have relatively equivalent analysis and evidence, I will consider whose impact is stronger. After determining the clash points and unresponded arguments that each team win, I will finally weigh the winning points from both sides, considering not only which team wins more points, but also the relative importance of the points from the each team.

Determine the speaker point: your preparedness, structure, politeness&manner, English speaking ability, accuracy of language.

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

A) I do not accept any new arguments from the Summary Speaker, and of course Final Focus Speaker. I believe that allowing new arguments from Summary Speakers will give Team B an unfairly big advantage. Hence, both teams are only allowed to give rebuttals at Summary, but no new argument is allowed.

B) During the crossfire, I do not accept interrupting your opponents when they’ve just started answering or asking a question within 10 seconds. Although I do believe interrupting is allowed during crossfire, I will give both teams 10 seconds of protection time when they are speaking, so as to prevent one team from speaking disproportionately more than the other.

Amelia Yin Hire None

Sherry Yu Hire None

Jamie Zhang Hire

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.

Sirius Shenghao Zhang Hire None

Ke Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

NHSDLC 2023 Judge Training Tournament

2022 — Online, CN

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges