I am looking to see your ability to clearly articulate your points, use positive body language, a strong voice, and eye contact. Speakers should work to persuade/inform with confidence. Convince with facts and persuade with information and genuine, clear arguments.

I am currently not affiliated with any debates for my current school (BASIS Chengdu); however, I did take part in supporting starting debate groups with the World Scholar’s Cup in previous schools (QSI Shenzhen) with students new to debating skills. I did not compete in debate groups in school outside of debate activities in courses I took.

I have not judged a policy debate in the past. I think that during debates, if you can clearly speak, express your ideas in an organized manner, and stick to the topic, you are on your way to presenting a good debate. Being able to work in cited sources to support your topics, as well as being able to argue counter topics while debating would be higher level in my mind, but I work a lot with second language learners. This is what I aspire to see when I watch a debate. not just your ideas and your why, but how do those ideas connect with the world around you, and the evidence you find to support your topic.

When thinking about arguments and style, I think it’s important to have solid argument points, but that being able to add your own style to debating is as equally important. You want to be able to draw the listener in, convince them to your way of thinking, and really make an impact on what they remember about you and your topic. Don’t bore me, and don’t make things up as you go along, Be prepared as best you can be, and use the information you have in a way that convinces me you’re the expert in what you’re sharing.

Hello!

I value clear communication, soundly researched arguments, and a strong sense of professionalism amongst participants. A strong team, for me, will be one that balances advanced public speaking skills with building their arguments. I have a low tolerance for teams to make personal attacks against their opponents during their debates.

Please be loud and clear when speaking. Use hand gestures and intonation to keep me engaged. I want to be able to feel your passion, but your emotions should not seem forced. It should come out naturally. The speaker should be confident and well-prepared. Proper use of ethos, logos, and pathos is key. Make sure your contentions are clearly outlined. Make sure your rebuttals clearly address the contentions of your opponent. Make sure to be aggressive but respectful during the crossfires.

Hello speakers,

I am Dr. Lanz and certified by NFHS in adjudicating and coaching speech and debate.

EXTEMP: I consider how well the speaker responds to the question, the quality and quantity of evidence you present, and the overall effectiveness of your speaking. I focus on logical analysis, clarity, effective introduction and conclusion, use of support material, use of language, and effective delivery.

IMP: I focus on the creativity of the speaker’s response, the organization and logic of your presentation, and the skillfulness of your overall communication.

OO: I focus on the quality of the speaker’s argument, including your logical connections and your use of evidence. I also look at the effectiveness of the speech’s organization and the flow of the speech. Your overall presentation, including speaking skills, creativity, and audience engagement is important.

Interp: I consider the skillfulness of the speaker’s performance, the creativity of the interpretation, and the overall coherence of the selection.

PF: I enjoy passionate arguments during crossfire. I also enjoy engaging presentations, meaning delivering your speech to the opposing team and the audience instead of just reading off of a script. I appreciate clear communication. Do not speed up.

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?
I have judged the NSDA and WSDA debates since 2018
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
Fast talking is not an issue but can be problematic sometimes in the sense that debaters will be racing against time to finish all their points and end up generalizing most of their points. It is better to slow pace and let the judge hear important points supported by concrete evidence.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
Aggressiveness between opponents will always be discouraged since it doesn't promote the idea of fair and friendly competition. The main idea of the competition for me is to learn and not always about winning at all costs.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
The adjudication of any debate will consider a number of issues but my verdict will be determined by the terms or rules of that specific debate. Competitors will have to demonstrate their understanding of the topic by referencing authentic sources or statistics rather while demonstrating critical analysis skills required for this debate than use emotional points to seek validation of this judge.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
Everything will be based on who has done justice to the topic in key areas rather than who has sided with my position. I will approach every competition without choosing a side of the topic I support or will not be influenced by my cultural values to determine outcomes.

Hello students,
As an experienced judge with 3 years adjudication, my approach to evaluating debates is centered on promoting effective communication, critical thinking, and a balanced assessment of each team's performance. I prioritize the quality of arguments over quantity, urging debaters to focus on a clear and concise presentation, supported by strong evidence and addressing key clash points.
Establishing a clear framework early in the round and consistently applying it to arguments is crucial for a favorable evaluation. I place great importance on impact calculus and weighing as it aids in determining the round's outcome. Throughout the debate, I maintain a detailed flow. Clarity and organization significantly enhance a team's chances of winning the round.

During crossfire, I encourage strategic use of examples to clarify and extend arguments. In rebuttals, I look for effective summarization, crystallization of key points, and responsive clash with opponents' arguments. I award speaker points based on clarity, strategic thinking, and effective use of cross-examination. It is essential for debaters to be respectful and professional, contributing to a positive debating environment.
I am open to different styles and approaches, encouraging adaptability and creativity within the bounds of PF debate norms.
Ultimately, clarity, evidence quality, and strategic thinking are key elements that influence my ballot. I aim to provide constructive feedback to assist teams in their improvement.
Best of luck to all debaters!

My Judging Paradigm
I look for arguments that are informative and enlightening when judging each round. Debaters should refute their opponents' claims and explain why their points should be accepted. I will cast my vote based on the relative importance of the contentions, claims, warrants, and impacts.
Debaters should ensure their speeches can be heard clearly. The judges and opponents must be able to hear and understand what you are saying. Explain to me why you ought to prevail in the debate. Making a compelling argument, supporting it with pertinent data, and refuting your opponents' claims can accomplish this. Please ensure that evidence supports your arguments rather than simply providing facts, as my understanding may not match yours.
I observe how both sides engage during cross-fires (by asking relevant questions and giving meaningful answers) because one can get the other to concede some of their arguments.
Finally, the summary and final focus speeches help debaters properly evaluate and weigh the impacts. This needs to be well-written and robust enough to persuade.

PF:

I will be evaluating on the round overall, not on a single issue or point. I’ll be looking for clear, effective communication of arguments with evidence to support them. My decision will be based solely on the arguments and evidence presented in the round. Expect that I will flow throughout and that I will be looking for sound reasoning and analysis, preparedness and organization, and finally effective clash and teamwork. I expect a high level of civility and respect between debaters. Rude or unprofessional behavior will negatively impact speaker points.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hyper-technical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters.

A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner.

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments, and I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument. "Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "noncircumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find.

Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.