I have experience judging PF debates both online and offline with NHSDLC over the past several months. When it comes to speaking speed, I find that a moderate pace is preferable for clear communication and easy understanding.

In terms of aggressiveness, it can be effective if done respectfully. Maintaining a professional tone is crucial, and personal attacks or disruptive gestures are never acceptable.

To determine the winner, I focus on the coherence and accuracy of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery. I don't entertain new arguments in the summary speech, emphasizing the consolidation of main points. The winner is typically the debater with the strongest, well-supported arguments and effective rebuttals. The goal is a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with the winner being the one who best achieves that objective.

Framework: I place a strong emphasis on the framework, which involves deciding which issues or impacts are most important and instructing debaters on how to weigh them in the round. The main priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis, and effective use of evidence.

Speaker Points: To decide the winner, I look at speaker points based on a debater's presentation style, clarity, and overall performance. Strong communication skills contribute to a more persuasive and engaging performance. Respect for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate.

Clash and Rebuttal: I also look at the clash—direct engagement with the opponent's arguments—and effective rebuttal. Debaters are expected to respond to opposing points and demonstrate why their arguments are superior.

Relevant Evidence: The utilization of relevant evidence and examples to support arguments is vital. I assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team.

I'm Sophie, a youthful, fervent judge who is thrilled to participate in your discussions. My judging philosophies are based on creating a learning atmosphere where precision, in-depth analysis, and flexibility are essential. I support debaters in honing their skills through helpful criticism, and I look forward to hearing compelling, well-structured speeches that show a deep comprehension of the subjects. Although competition is important, my main priorities are being fair in my evaluations and fostering an environment that is conducive to thoughtful conversation. I value strong arguments, flexibility in the face of unforeseen difficulties, and the capacity to discuss and interact with different points of view. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions or concerns, and let's make debates productive and insightful discussions.

Best regards,
Sophie.

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

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

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

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

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

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

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

6. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

A. I try to take notes on everything.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

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

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 9

10. How important is frame work to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 8

14. How fast should students speak? 7

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.

Kaye Esperanza G. Elizalde

Age: 27

College: University of Southeastern Philippines

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Public Speaking Coach

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

I am an English Teacher from the Philippines since 2018 and have coached debaters as well. Since I have just recently moved in China, my first judging event was when I participated last WSDA Dec 2-3 Competition. I have judged both Middle School and High School Public Forum. I have also judged Spontaneous Debate as well as Original Oratory and Expository Speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in general may be challenging for others to follow. It can be due to conveying excitement or delivering information with a sense of urgency. However, in Debate it is quite a talent to Fast Talk during Constructive and Rebuttals speeches since it is time limited. However, when one does fast talk yet cannot articulate well the words, it removes the purpose of giving information and will just be unclear for the receiver of the message.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

I view aggressiveness as a tool to overpower the opponent. It can also be used to show confidence in what you believe and are trying to say. It is being persuasive. In a debate, both parties must present their sides with ample assertiveness to persuade the judge about their claims, warrants and impacts to win. However, being aggressive alone still cannot impose certain victory. It’s only an aid to convince the people.

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

I always take down notes especially in the Constructive. Usually, both parties are starting strong about their claims. However, I notice that during Crossfires and Rebuttals, one team dominates the other. It’s about who can answer logically and with a more reasonable rebuttal. Also, I am looking for evidence that supports their contentions. Lastly, I am very particular with the team who cannot rebut quickly. It shows doubt towards their information and unpreparedness.

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

First, I tell them that whenever you deliver a speech, raise your volume 20% higher than your normal speaking voice. A lot of debaters are almost inaudible. Next, I tell them to think before you speak. Learn to conjure questions directly that the Judge and Opponents understand. Debate is time limited, most debaters waste Crossfires due to a lot of unnecessary phrases like repeating contentions rather than directly asking their questions. Lastly, I let them shake hands. To convey that both parties are strong and to accept that there will always be a winner and a loser.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University

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.

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.

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

I respect time management so l accept fast talking as long as the speaker is audible.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

It’s not necessary for a win …. Everything should be done in moderation showing respect for every debater.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
l consider all the facts given then compare the facts to the evidence provided .

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Debates should flow smoothly with the highest level of professionalism

I debated policy at Omaha Westside from 2009-2012. This is my 5th year coaching at Millard North.

Policy Paradigm

My national circuit experience is largely with critical debate. I'm more familiar with the identity side of things than postmodern, but I've gotten to a point where I feel comfortable understanding the majority of explanations of high theory arguments, even if a detail is lost here or there.

I think debates should emphasize debating and clash. Therefore, I am not a good judge for clash avoidant strategies and mental gymnastic competitions that proliferate underdeveloped arguments.

I prefer a combination of evidence and analysis over evidence dumps. Application of arguments, direct responses and comparative analysis should start before the final speech in front of me.

RoBs are often arbitrary and self-serving. I like them when they function as a point of clash that is essentially impact comparison between competing political approaches, ideologies, methods, etc. I don't like them when people think they win because the other team "dropped" the RoB because they didn't have a competing text despite the other team being ahead on the substance of the debate (links, impacts, solvency, whatever). If that's the case I'll probably vote for the team winning the substance.

I do not vote on cheap shots. Arguments are at least a claim and a warrant.


Disads, CPs, Ks, T – Default to offense/defense within reason. Complete defense is possible but highly unlikely. Turns case arguments get away with too much because silly internal links and magic alternatives aren’t challenged.

I’ve been less active this year so I’m not familiar with the truth(ier) side of topic disads and affs. Spin supported by evidence will go far. This will be the most disorienting on T because case lists will just be random case names to me, so emphasizing the quality of cases and debates for x and y reason will be especially important.


Framework – 

Part A – General Thoughts

I have a slight aff side bias in the relatively few framework debates I’ve judged, but I think that has more to do with the average framework debater being conceptually behind the average k aff debater in framework debates than anything else. 

That being said, I think the neg block on framework is the most commonly mediocre block in debate. They’re overly scripted, non-responsive, full of blippy jargony arguments that aren’t contextualized to the aff, and the 2NCs and 2NRs are almost identical to the speeches given in other debates against wildly different critical affs. It’s about as bad as when less experienced teams are learning to run 1 off Ks and read essays worth of blocks while doing no contextualized analysis. 

I understand that framework is run to mitigate the neg prep pressure against the ballooning number of critical affs, but I think having somewhat specific case defense and adapting the block and 2NR direction according to the critical aff being faced is necessary. There's a lot of easily available quality evidence that is being underutilized.

I like critical affs, but framework can be necessary depending on team size, experience level and coaching expertise. The presence of framework also pressures critical affs to remain honest so they actually defend something worth debating. I think it’s a good argument when run well.

Part B – When I'm Judging

I think there are two main ways for the neg to collapse down when running framework. There’s the “policy-oriented debates produce skills necessary to anti-oppression politics, their form of debate does the opposite” 2NRs and the “debate is a game, limits explosion tanks predictability and denies core negative ground, competitive equity outweighs” 2NRs.

I think the former is more persuasive against affs that are heavily against state engagement, which makes a viable t version of the aff unlikely. Anti-state engagement affs also have access to sweeping impact turns that I think require mitigation outside of t version of the aff and ssd because they undermine competitive equity framing, which makes case defense and policy skills turns case arguments useful in the 2NR. 

I think the latter is better vs. more soft-left affs that aren’t particularly anti-state but instead advocate a consciousness shift or some jargony jazz as a prerequisite to effective state action. It’s too easy for those affs to win they don’t suspend state engagement and only make engagement better through reckoning with x messed up thing, which opens up more persuasive t version of the aff claims and reasons why ssd leaves enough space in the neg’s model of debate to heavily mitigate aff offense.

For me, figuring out in cross-x of the 1AC how the aff relates to the state is vital, as many 1ACs can be read either way.

Neg blocks should not drop the 2AC overview that lists disads and uses case to turn framework. This is equivalent to dropping the block’s disad turns case overview. Debaters can win without answering it but why would they put themselves in that position?

I think the neg would benefit from explaining the t version of the aff similar to a counterplan, explaining how it solves individual parts of the aff or overlaps with the area of scholarship and then using offense elsewhere on framework to outweigh the specific “solvency deficits.” 

LD Paradigm

I have little experience with national circuit LD. I’ve mostly judged locally. My national circuit experience in policy is mostly on the critical side, but I am more than comfortable with a good disad, cp case debate. 

I can recognize some LD jargon but I don’t know what they actually mean. I don’t know what skep-triggers are or the permissibility vs presumption debate, and so on. I’m also not familiar with a lot of the moral theory. That being said, I can flow, follow and evaluate coherent arguments. This means there will be a higher threshold to effective explanation because I won’t be able to fill in the blanks or conceptually complete arguments for debaters because I don’t know what the best version of the arguments they’re making are.

I default to offense/defense within reason.

I’ve noticed I have a slight neg side bias when judging LD. I think this is mostly due to 1ARs having trouble and/or 2ARs collapsing to new arguments or unjustifiably new spins on previous arguments. 1ARs seem inefficient on case, especially when dealing with low quality arguments.

Generally speaking, remember that overadapting is not a good idea. You do you and I'll try my best to keep up.

Speed - Yes. Slow down when reading a flurry of analytics and don’t sacrifice clarity.

Theory – I'm accustomed to theory being read to discourage shadiness that would prevent effective debate, not as a mental gymnastics competition to avoid clash and substance.

1AR and 2NR restarts sound as vacuous as paragraph theory. 

If evaluating a theory debate I’ll first look to whether fairness or education was determined as more important (or determine who won that debate is there was disagreement) then isolate each team’s links to it. Not all forms of education and fairness are created equal. Weigh critical vs policy education, topic specific education, cost-benefit analysis, structural in round fairness vs fairness in respect to oppression, etc. Some people would categorize those as just links to education or fairness. Regardless, invest time in them. Comparative analysis is everything. 

Critical – Cool. Lack of an effective explanation of the method is the most common mistake.

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.