As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.

Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.

I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
6. BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
7. WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
8. WSD online (October 2023)
9. WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
10. Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
11. BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
12. General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
13. TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
14. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
15. TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
16. TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
17. NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
18. TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
19. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 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. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout 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 in an analytical way and also by referencing authentic sources or statistics rather than using emotional points to seek validation of this judge. 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.

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.

As a judge in debate and speech competitions, my primary goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to participants while evaluating their performance.

I prefer that fewer arguments surpass many weak ones in terms of persuasiveness and should be addressed each at a time.

A framework is an essential roadmap for how the speaker will approach the debate. Without a framework, I might get lost in the details of the debate and lose sight of the big picture, so I consider a framework as an essentialpart of the debate.

Rebuttals should elaborate on each point made by the debaters in their persuasive speeches.

If you want to give evidence mention it from citation details like the author, year, or source.

I expect participants to articulate their ideas in a clear and concise manner, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims.

Oral prompting is acceptable in crossfire and all 4 debaters should participate in Grand Cross.

The debaters are expected to keep the discussion on the resolution's major aspects.

I have no opinion based on critical arguments. Just debate the resolution.

Each debater has an equal ability to prove the validity of his or her side of the resolution as a general principle during arguments.

Be courteous and not bully.

I will also evaluate how well speakers engage with their audience through eye contact, vocal projection, and body language.

Speak clearly using good oral communication skills.

Communicate with your opponents.

During the debate, I will evaluate each speaker based on their individual performance rather than comparing them to other participants.

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.

I used to be the head coach of my high school's debating program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks. Judge Philosophies 1.Judge’s Name: Queen Chibanda 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

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.