NHSDLC Spring Online I
2023 — Online, CN
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJUDGE 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 believe all the debaters have make an exhaustive preparation on their cases and long for make the best of them in every round. But I highly suggest debaters pacing themselves when providing a speech in order to avoid slurring words together and to make the content more understandable since audiences and judges are not machine and they’re not knowing about everything for every motion. Make sure ur essential linkage,impact and evidence are understandable.
I think aggressiveness in debate can be good. It can really make the debate more dynamic and active. However, I believe a good debaters can differentiate aggressive and rude.Debaters who cross the line and disrupt the order will be punished.
Which team can provide more solid logic link (probability) and concrete impact (magnitude) can win this debate. Evidence is also important for me to weigh the exact impact from both team but I do believe it means little if the linkage and impact are underdeveloped.
1. Debate career?
I have previous judging experience with NHSDLC the past several mothns. Judging PF online and offline tournaments.
2. Fast-talking?
Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.
3. Aggressiveness?
Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.
4. Determining the winner of the debate?
To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.
I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.
In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.
Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.
BLESSING PETER
My personal debate philosophy.
I believe reserving judgment and taking your time is an essential part of the debate, the ability to use simple logic to refute an opponent’s argument for me is the key
Speech Projection
I have no issues as long as the speech is clear, and does not put too much focus on the number of arguments which will lead to race against time instead focus on quality and emphasis because at the end of the day I can only judge on what I clearly hear no matter how good and confident I am in my flowing skills
My take on aggressiveness
I believe healthy competition comes from respecting each other, they are your opponent, not your enemies, remember, empty vessels make a lot of noise!
How do I usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly
As aforementioned on the use of logic to refute an opponent’s argument, rebuttal speech for me is one of the most important areas to excel in, gather your main arguments in the summary, you do that you win it
Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don’t second guess your argument, if you do let it be inside don’t show it
I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.
I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.
Age: 25
College: Nanjing Medical University
Current Occupancy: Student in College
1. What types of debates have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?
I have 4 years of experience as a debater. I have participated in Public Forum debates, World School debates, and British Parliamentary debates.
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps in maximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
Aggressiveness doesn't win you the round, let's be polite to one another and stick to the important facts.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
I believe that public forum debate is all about reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence and impact. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and the impact, you can win the round. Therefore, the team with the better claim, warrant, and impact wins the round.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference for the debate.
I usually decide the winner of the debate based on four speeches: constructive, rebuttal, summary, and final focus. As long as you do well in these four speeches, you are guaranteed success.
Good luck and remember to have fun, everyone!
MY JUDGE PARADIGM
NAME: MUTITI WAITHANJI
AGE: 50 YEARS
CURRENT OCCUPATION: UNIVERSITY LECTURER
Currently I am a university lecturer at University of Kabianga, School of Education and Social Sciences, Kenya. I have been a high school teacher in Kenya for over fifteen years, teaching English Language to International General Certificate Education (IGCSE) students. I have participated in moderating National school debates, and I do currently participate in our University students debates every semester. In my judging I prefer moderately fast speakers, as this would help them to marshal their points home easily. I like concise and well thought out arguments, debaters who can aggressively prod the responses of their opponents with decorum, and intellectual maturity. This would with an aim of getting clarifications and a possible avenue for further learning and getting more refined in terms of speech and debating skills. In the debate arena I will seek to understand the framework on which the competitors predicate their argument, how they go about proving their claims and with what results. Logical flow, clarity of thought and good flow of clashes and strong rebuttals would be my point for calling a debate. I anticipate a fruitful engagement and learning experience for all.
Name: USMAN
Age: 35
College: Shanghai JiaoTong University
Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): PhD student
1. What types of debate have you participated before (only counting ones that you practice/participate extensively) and how long is your debate career?
- Public Forum debate: 4 years of judging experience from 2018-2022 in debating tournament under NHSDLC and also several times judge under TOC.
2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy
I believe public debate is all about evidence with up-to-date examples and impact weighing of it. But please remember to be polite and humble to your opponent during debate especially during crossfire.
3. How do you consider fast-talking?
I don’t mind it at all fast talking as far you are polite to your opponents.
4. How do you consider aggressiveness
I am not in favor of aggressiveness; it makes you appear irrational Infront of me
5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
As a judge I give win to those team who had good arguments and shows very good performance in rebuttal and final focus.
6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Please make sure you do prepare as much up-to-date research on the debate topic as you can before entering the round. You can only be successful with as much knowledge on the topic as you can. Have fun guys and wish you good luck for debate.
1). In my opinion the goal of a framework is to to frame your case such that your impacts are relevant, and your opponents do not. It can be used to weigh the value of impacts in the beginning of the round, and to set a burden of proof on the other team.
2). In a debate I focus on the arguments, evidence, the impact of the arguments as compared to that of the opponent, I also focus on the solvents.
For a speech i focus on whether the student has understood the topic and how important it is, how people can relate to it and also the originality within the speech it self, these are some of the criterias I use to judge a speech.
3). A good ballot to me comprise of a minimum of three contentions like for example, the weight of the impact in the topics discussed, evidence with good factual data on the topic, intriguing crossfires, the summary that stays within the boundaries of the topic not new arguments. These as well are the criterias I mainly focus on when judging a debate
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.