BRIAN BWANYA

AGE: 24

COLLEGE: NANJING UNIVERSITY

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

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

I have been honored to represent my school as a first speaker back in high school at both provincial and national level during the 2019 season and participated in numerous high school debates in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I prefer moderate and composed talking. Fast talking can result in poor word articulation and the judge(s) might miss a curial argument. I do not encourage debaters to use speed rather use substance to overwhelm your opponents. Quality over Quantity.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

It's important to present your arguments with conviction and passion but always maintain a respectful and professional approach. Keep in mind that, the main aim is to persuade others with logic and mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

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

Well l take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with concise logic and in-depth analysis, persuasiveness and clear arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.

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

It's important for me to see clear arguments presented by both sides backed with recent and relevant evidence. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or insults even derogatory language. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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

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

NAME: ASHWIN

GENDER: MALE

INSTITUTION: NANJING UNIVERSITY

AGE: 24

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 (front lining)? (a)

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? (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?

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.

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

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

Judge Philosophies

1.Judge’s Name:NDUMISO ENOCK LANGA

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?
As much as every part of the round structure is important I tend to discover the strength or weakness of the debaters during the cross fire and rebuttal speech,the dynamics in responding to questions asked and the comprehensive skills to your opponent’s arguments (this depicted by crushing points in reference to your opponents information presented which further depicts exceptional memory and logic reasoning).I love eloquent speakers who rely less on notes/reading,debators who know what they talk about and base their evidence on latest information.Team work is key,a team with the same energy and that blends perfectly without one outshining the other or one evidently lagging behind.

Some of the key elements to assist debaters:
Confidence
Preparation
Background research of the topic
Art-use of gestures,emotions where needed,facial expressions,Voice projection,movements,boldness,emphasis on key points,eye contact with the adjudicators.

9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I’m very friendly and accommodative ,debaters can consult me anytime if they need oral feedback or if they have any queries regarding the scoring or the notes on the rfd.I would love to assist where I possibly can .

I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.I have been involved in college debating for more than one year,mostly in BP format.While evidence helps to demonstrate the point a speaker is trying to make, I value the logical construction of the argument the most. The arguments need to be supported by well developed premises and characterizations. My decisions are based on which teams win the most important voting issues of the round as opposed to the quantity of arguments. I prefer speakers who prioritize clarity and persuasiveness over speaking pace.

I have over 5 years of experience in Public Forum debate. I have judged over 7 tournaments in the past. All in all, I am a flow judge, I am ok with relatively fast speaking speed. Here’re some suggestions for you:

1. DON’T bring up new points in final focus...I WON’T give you any credit for that as it will not appear on my flow sheet.
2. Weigh your impacts!
3. If your opp. Drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you should call it out.
4. Extend your arguments through out the whole debate to ensure full credit from me.
5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might call for the card. (DON’T fake your cards)
6. I am fine with speed once again, but please make sure your clarity is the priority, I will STOP flowing as soon as you start spreading.
7. Simply don’t interrupt your opponents during cross...give them a chance to finish their question before you insert another follow-up or response
8. I won’t necessarily flow crossfire so if you think anything occurred that’s important during the cross, you need to state it in your next immediate speech.
9. If you want my vote, the links should be clear.

At the end of each round, I will provide a short round analysis and personal feedbacks if any debaters want any. Do understand that I make my decisions on a very serious basis, so please bare with me if I need few minutes to make my decisions up.

ISHMAEL MANDIGO

AGE:25

COLLEGE: Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunications

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

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

Public Forum debate: 2 years of participation during High School, 2014-2017, 2 appearances at the provincial level ZINDC and ZNDT

2. How do you consider 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.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I see aggressiveness as a tactic used during debates to ridicule your opponent. That being said, I would strongly advise against using this in a tournament setting. Respect your opposition. This is a pretty good strategy in politics, but we aren't here to judge your character, we are here to judge your arguments. Don't make it so that we are forced to consider aggressiveness into our judging paradigm.

4.How do you usually determine 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.

Generally speaking, the person who can effectively refute their opponent's points and present the strongest, most convincing case will probably win the debate.

The winner of a debate is the one who most successfully accomplishes the main objective of the discussion, which is to have a courteous and educational exchange of ideas.

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

For me, it's critical to see well-reasoned arguments from both sides supported by current, pertinent data. Additionally, I favor debaters who can maintain composure under pressure by refraining from insults, personal attacks, and even insulting language. Finally, stay on topic and refrain from digressions or unrelated debates that have no bearing on the main point.

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

B. 6-10

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

C. I take few notes and focus more on the overall presentation.

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

A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

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

8

10. How important is the framework to your decision making?

8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

10

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

9

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

8

14. How fast should students speak?

8

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Judging Philosophy

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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)

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

Strength of Arguments:

Quality: How well-developed, logical, and clear are the arguments presented by each team.

Evidence: Do debaters use credible sources (statistics, studies, expert opinions) to support their claims.

Relevance: How well do the arguments connect to the core topic of the debate.

Rebuttal Skills:

Comprehension: Does a team effectively understand and respond to the opposing side's arguments.

Direct Response (Frontlining): Does the second rebuttal speaker address the points raised in the first rebuttal from the other team.

Refutation: Does the rebuttal identify weaknesses in the opposing arguments and offer strong counter-arguments.

Delivery and Presentation:

Clarity: Are arguments presented in a clear, concise, and easy-to-understand manner. Organization: Is the flow of arguments logical and easy to follow.

Civility and Respect: Do debaters maintain a professional demeanor and avoid personal attacks.

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

I am neutral and open-minded. I am also easily persuaded for as long as you deliver and present your arguments in a clear and organized way.

Hello, my name is Dora. Here are some of my judging preferences, it would be great if you could read it beforehand.

• Respect your opponents
• Make your contentions clear
• Do not fake evidence
• No new arguments during the final focus
• I will not flow during cross-fire
• I'm willing to give a 5-second grace time, however, it is expected that debaters time themselves.

Good luck to everyone.

Judge Philosophies

Judge’s Name: Latifa Mtawali

As a debate and public speech judge, I will consider the following factors when deciding the best speech or debate:

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

1. Substance of Arguments

Strength of evidence: Did the debaters back their claims with facts, statistics, and credible sources?

Logical reasoning: Were the arguments internally consistent and well-structured? Did they avoid fallacies?

Addressing counter-arguments: Did the debaters anticipate and effectively respond to opposing viewpoints?

2. Delivery and Style:

Clarity and conciseness: Were the arguments easy to understand and follow?

Charisma and stage presence: Did the debater hold the audience's attention and project confidence?

Civility and respect: Did the debaters treat each other and opposing viewpoints with respect?

3. Audience and Context:

Debate format: Was it a formal competition with set rules or a more informal discussion?

Audience expectations: What were the audience members hoping to gain from the debate?

Persuasiveness: Did the debater effectively shift the audience's opinion on the issue?

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

The energy of young debaters is truly inspiring! Witnessing their passion and deep knowledge of these important issues is a privilege. I'm excited to participate and immerse myself in the entire experience.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a.

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c

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

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

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

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

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

NGALULA JOJO

AGE:23

COLLEGE:NANJING UNIVERSITY OF POST AND TELECOMMUNICATION

CURRENT OCCUPANCY:STUDENT

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

I did debate when I was in high school went up to provincial level in 2017 and 2018.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I don’t mind fast talking but I do prefer moderate and composed talking. Talking fast can result in poor word articulation and the judges might miss crucial argument moreover I think value over volume.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

Arguments should be presented with passion but always be respectful and professional. Keep in mind that, the main aim should be to persuade others with logic and especially the mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

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

I take into consideration the entire debate before determining the team which wins. The team which has the most persuasive argument and is backed by logic.

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

It's extremely important that your arguments are presented as clear as possible with proper breakdown so that I can follow along and it needs to be backed up with relevant evidence. I do prefer debaters who are able to conduct themselves professionally by remaining calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks. Lastly, don’t go on tangents and give irrelevant arguments do your best to stick to the topic.

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

Background: As a PF debate judge, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, clarity, and effective communication. I value depth of analysis and strategic use of evidence. I encourage debaters to engage in clash, respond to opponents' arguments, and communicate with a broad audience.

Expectations:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Support your arguments with relevant evidence, but don't forget to analyze and explain the implications. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence.

3. Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.

4. Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

5. Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.

6. Flexibility: Adapt to the flow of the round. Flexibility in strategy and argumentation is appreciated.

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an OO judge, I am looking for compelling storytelling, effective use of rhetoric, and a speaker who can captivate the audience. I appreciate creativity, passion, and a clear message.

Expectations:

1. Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.

2. Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.

3. Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.

4. Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.

5. Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.

6. Timing: Respect the time limits. Practice to ensure that your speech fits within the allocated time.

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an Impromptu judge, I value adaptability, quick thinking, and effective communication. I understand the constraints of the format and appreciate speakers who can navigate them successfully.

Expectations:

1. Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.

2. Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.

3. Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.

4. Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.

5. Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.

6. Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.

1. I like lots of quantitative impact with links that are strongly supported

2. I'm generally fine with fast speaking, as long as it is clear and fluent. But any form of spreading is strongly discouraged, I will stop flowing if I cannot hear you clearly.

3. Framework should be clear and justifiable

4. I like logic and reasoning, I don't want to see arguments formed on the basis of pathos

5. Weigh your clashes in summary

6. Do not dominate crossfire, give the opposition a chance to speak or clarify.

7. If there is a lack in evidence, please provide a justified mechanism

Do not bring up any new points for both summary and final focus, and extend your arguments throughout the entire debate. Do not drop your own points!

Final note, please try to use up all your time and be respectful to both the judge and the opponent.

My paradigm is rooted in creating an educational and fair environment that promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and respectful discourse. I believe that the purpose of competitive debate extends beyond winning or losing; it serves as a platform for intellectual growth and the development of essential life skills.

In evaluating debates, my primary standard for decision-making is the clarity and strength of argumentation. I place significant emphasis on well-reasoned, evidence-supported arguments that contribute to a coherent and logical case. Effective communication skills, including clarity of speech, organization, and the ability to articulate complex ideas, are paramount.

I also value strategic thinking and adaptability in debaters. The ability to respond to opponents' arguments with agility, while maintaining a consistent and coherent case, demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic. Flexibility and strategic use of cross-examination and rebuttal time can be powerful tools when employed thoughtfully.

In addition to substance, I prioritize fairness and respectful engagement. Debaters should demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethical considerations in argumentation. Respectful cross-examination, adherence to time limits, and a genuine willingness to engage with opposing perspectives contribute positively to the overall quality of the debate.

As part of my decision-making process, I consider the quality and relevance of evidence presented. Debaters should use credible sources to support their claims, and the evidence should be contextualized effectively within the broader argument.

While style is not the primary focus of my judging paradigm, effective delivery and presentation can enhance the overall impact of a debater's case. However, style should complement substance rather than overshadow it.

In providing feedback, I aim to offer constructive criticism that guides students toward improvement. I highlight strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing areas for growth and providing specific suggestions for enhancement.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to contribute to the educational experience of the participants by fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating atmosphere, promoting fair and thoughtful decision-making, and encouraging the development of critical thinking and communication skills.

Judge philosophies

1. judge’s name: Moirah Sithole

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

• I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

• I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

• TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

• I regularly read news about this topic. It's an interest of mine

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

1. 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.

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

The following are the factors that goes into to my decision as to who wins the debate:

1. Content and Argumentation: l assess the strength of each team's arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented during the debate. This includes the clarity of the arguments, the relevance of the evidence cited, and the logic of the reasoning.

2. Clash and Rebuttal: l then evaluate how well each team engages with and responds to the arguments made by the opposing team. Effective rebuttals that address the key points raised by the other side and highlight weaknesses in their arguments are important.

3. Organization and Structure: l also look at how well each team organizes their case, presents their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, and provides a clear roadmap for the debate.

4. Delivery and Presentation: l consider the speaking skills of the debaters, including their clarity, confidence, and ability to effectively communicate their arguments to the audience.

5. Crossfire Performance: l sometimes also take into account how well debaters perform during the crossfire, where they engage in direct questioning and answering with the opposing team.

6. Impact and Weighing: l further assess the overall impact of each team's arguments and weigh the significance of the impacts presented. Debaters are expected to explain why their arguments are more important or have a greater impact than those of the opposing team.

7. Use of Evidence: l also evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented by each team to support their arguments. Debaters who use credible and well-supported evidence are often viewed more favorably.

8. Clarity of Final Focus: The final focus speeches are crucial in summarizing the key arguments and impacts of the debate. I pay attention to how well debaters crystallize their arguments and make a compelling case for why they should win.

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

Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .

I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.

I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 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

• Stephanie Tsagli, I am highly respected debater and judge known for exceptional skills, ethical values, and commitment to fostering meaningful discourse.
• My paradigm is characterized by intellectual prowess, fairness, open-mindedness, and dedication to promoting constructive dialogue. -
• I continuously learn and grow to enhance my intellectual capabilities. -
• I treat all debaters with respect, values diverse perspectives, and ensures equitable consideration of every viewpoint. -
• Stephanie cultivates an environment that nurtures intellectual growth by embracing open-mindedness and encouraging exploration of diverse viewpoints.
• I serve as a mentor, offering constructive criticism and guidance to enhance debaters' skills and arguments. -
• I uphold ethical values and integrity, emphasizing the importance of truth, evidence, and ethical considerations in arguments.
• I extend my influence beyond the debate arena by shaping the next generation of debaters through imparting values, knowledge, and experience.

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Ryan Wang 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?

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.

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

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.

I've been debating public forums for the past two years. Spreading is fine. Weigh your impacts. Be aggressive but to an extent. Use clashes during the summary. Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers rather than reading evidence.

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.