Public Forum

1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.

2. Offense is more important than defense.

3. Weigh the debate accordingly.

4. I engage in paper flowing during debates; however, I do not specifically flow during crossfire, though I ensure to pay close attention. My hope is for debaters to view crossfire as an opportunity for polite and orderly exchanges, leading to meaningful conversations, rather than resorting to aggression and unwarranted accusations.

5. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.

About me

I have been coaching and judging PF for more than 4 years.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.I care more about the analysis of the linkage.

Crossfire: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X.

About Framework:

please kindly explain why your framework is more important in debates.

Free feel ask me questions if you have any
akram0217@gmail.com

Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).

Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.

I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.

I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).

I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.

T

Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).

K

The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

CP

The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.

Other

I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

https://kdocs.cn/l/crMAhYhgXHHb?f=301 [文件]Judge Philosophy Survey Zora.docx 可复制链接到WPS Office中打开文档

Judge Philosophies

1.Judge’s NameElaine Hu

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?

Constructive speech with enough reasoning and impact

Crossfire win is the most important metric in my judging

I prefer debaters do rebut more smartly by knowing what you say and based on what you’ve researched.

9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

no

Judge Philosophy: https://workdrive.zoho.com.cn/file/uogmq11bab0264d9b43b1b0dc1657653db046

1.Judge’s Name: Lucy Luo

2.Judging experience: I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year without receiving complaints.

3.Debating experience: I have debated other formats for more than 2 years but not Public Forum.

4.Preferred speaking speed: conversational speed(120-150wpm) or TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5.How much do you know about the topic: I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

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.

7.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.

8.What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

: The cooperation of the speakers in one team; the response to the opponents; weighing of the cases; the wholeness of the arguments, etc.

9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know?

: You can surely have your own timer. No conversation when one is making rebuttal or constructive speech. No need to be angry when your opponents' talking nonsense, the judge will know. Please stay calm and don't let others' feelings lead you astray.

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.

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.

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

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.

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)

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)

The effectiveness of your own case—comprising the clarity of your claim, the coherence of your mechanism, and the significance of your impact. Equally crucial is your engagement with your opponents' case, including rebuttals, weighing etc. Lastly, the adequacy and quality of your evidence—encompassing its truthfulness, authority, importance, and influence.

I firmly believe that it's essential to respect your opponents in a debate, steering clear of any aggressive intentions or actions, and instead opting for a polite and courteous approach.

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Ye Jingru 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?

(1): Strong & coherent argumentation; Skillful questioning and defense

(2): effective rebuttals of opposing points and effective engagements with opposing arguments;

(3): Relevant, credible evidence and convincing presentation of case;

(4): etiquette and conduct: Professionalism & Respect

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

No~

Judge’s Name Chris Zhang
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)

1. 8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
2. I pay more attention to the world view built by the contestants during the debate. In short, the logic of the debate is greater than their evidence

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I usually pay very little importance to stats and numbers, sometimes to the extent of negligence. That is also to say, I value logical reasoning and structural analysis the most, apart from that, clear structure in speech and smart framing is also much appreciated in my decision making

For Original Oratory, three keys in content: Importance, Relatability, Originality. Speakers can emphasize the significance of the speech. (for example, Why is it related to the society? How does it affect the world? Why people should care about it?) Speakers can involve audience in the speech, relate the issue with audience. In delivery, non-verbal: eye contact, gestures are the most important. Verbal delivery is important as well: pace, intonation, pitch, tone, volume, pronunciation.

For debate, 1 constructive part, I focus more on Logic, arguments, impacts, each team should clearly know their burden in debate. Premise-contention-evidence-logic-impact should be connected. 2 rebuttal, teams should attack more contentions from opponents instead of extending more case. 3 summary, when teams cannot convince me to buy their clashes, I will conclude clashes from my point of view.

Really appreciate teams who do impact weighing!

My idea of a good speech:

Organization

1. Clear structures
2. Effective transitions
3. Natural development of speech

Analysis

1. Direct address to the prompt
2. Justifications for ideas
3. Establish significance to the points
4. Examples should be explained and linked to ideas

Delivery

1. Confidence
2. Effective voice movement and expression
3. Appropriate volume
4. Eye contact

What I look for in a debate

Arguments

1. Clear and relevant
2. Organized and easy to follow
3. Strong credible evidence

• Current events
• Historical data
• Cite reliable source

Rebuttal

1. Rebut each point
2. Tackle logical fallacies if you can
3. Explain Why your own position is more preferable

Time allocation

1. Spend enough time on important points

Teamwork

1. Unified development
2. Complementary arguments

Style and rhetoric (least important)

1. Fluent and compelling
2. Appropriate pace (I won’t write anything down if I can’t hear)