Speech Paradigm

H! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for speech. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. All topics of speeches are acceptable to me and a more or less emotional piece, performance, speech topic or approach will not automatically score you higher in a round.

Foundational speaking skills are taken heavily into consideration when judging a performance.

Volume -Being clearly heard and not too quiet is essential for engagement with the audience.
Gestures -A moderate balance of gestures are important for visual engagement of the speaker or your characters during a performance.
Eye Contact - Eye contact with an audience shows confidence as well as creates further visual engagement with an audience.
Memorization - Memorized pieces are required in order to score at the top of a round. Memorization means fluency and shows the dedication and practice
Stumbling - If you stumble, fumble your words or other spoken errors. Do not worry, just breathe and continue. You want your speech as confidence as possible.
Emotion - Passion, emotion and tone are very important for conveying the mood of your words to an audience
Stage Presence - A strong speaker will captivate the stage and will make for a much higher score over the course of a round.
Content - If your content is too simple, or not depthful, it will most likely hurt my interest in your piece

Remember to have fun, performance is a gift. You are all very talented and should be proud of your performance.

Debate Paradigm

Hi! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for debate. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. I approach debates with an open-mind and no inherent bias towards any argument pro or con. Tech, Circuit, Flow Judge. This means I take notes on everything and prioritize technical arguments and abilities over emotional narratives.

Very Important

I am not a fan of judge interference. This means I do not like to interject or connect the dots for your team. Succinct explanations are essential for me to be willing to favor your arguments. Lines like, "this helps all of the economy, or this helps society be better" without any explanation is going to be a meaningless sentence. Furthermore, saying "we had bigger impacts, or we have more evidence" without explanation will also hold zero weight in my considerations for your team.

Views on Evidence vs Analytics

1. Firstly, analytics are not a substitute for evidence. This means that you cannot say you have proven a point which is solely built on conjecture and expect me to believe it.
   
   
2. Secondly, evidence must be portrayed accurately. I will ask for a card myself if I feel it is not accurate or too perfectly read. Misrepresented evidence will hurt the overall persuasiveness of your argument.
   
   
3. Thirdly, I weigh evidence as having more value than analytics. This means that if you try to outweigh or deny an argument with solely logic, it will most likely not hold in weight or persuasiveness compared to an effective piece of evidence.

General Things

1. I live for the line-by-line debating.
2. A rebuttal that clearly signposts which part of a contention you are responding to will be taken more effectively.
3. Direct responses with warrants are taken at more value over indirect general responses.
4. Line-by-line frontlines with signposts will be taken at more value than indirect general responses.
5. Spreading is fine for me, and I will not count against it you as long as the speaker has clarity.
6. If you insult your opponent during cross-examination with an attack outside the scope of the debate, I will vote against your team.
7. I flow crossfire examination and take heavy consideration on what happens during crossfire. That being said, if you keep cutting your opponent off and then say, "they did not respond to our points," I will not take that comment at any value. Let your opponent answer the question.
8. Clashes which clearly establish the impact weighing mechanisms (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope, reversibility) are very effective.
9. No new arguments in Final Focus. New arguments will not be flowed or given any weight in the debate.

Expectations:

Clarity: Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation: Present well-developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash: Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing: Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect: Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

Thank you and I look forward to watching and judging.

This is my first year in debate judging. I deliberate on the overall presentation, how strong the argument is and supported with the facts effectively, how the debate team works, and how everyone has a voice.

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

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

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

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

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

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

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

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

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

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

T

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

K

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

K Affs

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

CP

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

Other

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

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

Enjoy yourself, stay confident no matter what happens. Arouse me at the start and end with a strong conclusion related to your topic. Be concise, structured and indulge me with interesting facts! All the best to you! I would love to hear and understand what you are saying!

I'm looking for coherence above anything else. I believe there is no point in making an argument if it cannot be understood. Therefore, be clear with your arguments and in your presentation.

I tend to favor participants that are the most specific. Specificity is the key to having a good speech or argument, in my opinion. As an English teacher, I tend to use what I look for in an essay as my criteria for judging a debate. I look for a Thesis that is backed up with arguments, analysis, and data.

I'm ok with speed, but sometimes, it's hard to understand when students are reading too fast. I do reserve the right to tell students to slow down.

I look to see you apply both public speaking and debate skills to use in debates. For each speech, you should be delivering strong arguments with the credible evidence to back up everything you're claiming. Don't spread. Unless you're looking to be an auctioneer in the future, it is of no real use to read as fast as possible. Deliver strong, clearly spoken speeches that any judge would be able to comprehend. I look for adaptation to changing judges/opponents. Additionally, debaters should actually be listening and taking note of what the opposing side is saying. It is immediately clear when one or both sides are just stating points without acknowledging what the opposing side stated. Pay attention for dropped contentions, weigh the impacts whenever appropriate.

I'm an independent debate coach in Shenzhen and Huizhou, before that I debated and coached policy in USA at high school and university level. This philosophy is intended for PF tournaments in China and to guide students to do well in general.

Overall, I'm looking for balanced debate performances that emphasize great public speaking, confidence, logical arguments, proficient use of evidence, and persuasive weighing.

In the constructive speech, make sure that the titles and warrants to your contentions are read clearly.

In the rebuttal speech, try to generate offense and don't forget to cross-apply relevant data/warrants from your constructive speech.

In the summary speech, make choices. Don't just summarize the debate. Start with an overview that crystallizes the debate by identifying the key clashes or important issues. Start the weighing process. Why is the clash that you are winning important? Then, move on to the line-by-line. Defend the contentions that you intend to win the debate on by rebutting the opponent's rebuttals. Remember, the final focus is built on the summary speech, so it's worth taking prep time to align with the second speaker's strategy.

In the final focus, crystalize the debate. This would sound something like this: "The benefits of the UMT clearly outweigh the harms because confronting inequality has a far greater impact than a small reduction in business investment; it's also the right thing to do." Then weigh the debate using criteria like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probability, ethics, and turns. Finally, extend some of your key data points or warrants and rebut the most pressing points from your opponent.

In crossfire, have a goal. In the first crossfire, a good goal would be to prove to the judge that a few of the premises of your case are true. e.g. inequality is a serious problem, the exit tax stops capital flight, etc. In the second crossfire, it's a good idea to try to prove that some key elements of the opponent's case are wrong. You can do this by showing a contradiction or disputing facts. In the grand crossfire, it's time to focus on the clashes. Show that you're winning them and which one is most important. In terms of style, I prefer that you let each other answer, that you don't ask too long of questions or answer for too long, and that you don't waste too much time asking for evidence. Write questions before cross-fire starts.

Overall, I'll hold debaters accountable for what's on the flow. If you don't extend something, you won't get credit for it. And, when you extend something, I expect a warrant and impact to come with it. Get in the habit of saying 'because', 'for example', and 'this is important because'.

Have fun, and try to have a growth mindset. I'll give you feedback, and I hope that you approach it with an open-mind. That being said, I do believe that "pull beats push". In other words, you know what you want feedback on and you shouldn't be afraid to ask. Consider asking questions like: "How could I have persuaded you that x = y?" or "Why didn't you find x point important to your decision?". General questions like "How can I improve?" are less effective than specific questions about the debate or your performance.

If you have any further questions that the ballot or post-round discussion didn't answer, feel free to contact me on

WeChat: m123farmer

1. Speak/enunciate clearly and 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 will lose the round.

2. Empirical evidence > emotional argument. I like the former. You will not win the round by trying to use the latter.

3. I like logic and a well thought out/planned case. I like to connect the dots.

4. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. Be respectful. You’re both here for the same reason.

Judge Paradigm for Public Forum Debate

1. Rate of Delivery: I prefer debaters to speak at a conversational rate, even in the rebuttal. In the past, a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand the arguments being presented. Clear and concise communication is key.

2. Persuasiveness: Arguments that are grounded in real-world impacts are the most persuasive to me. When constructing your case, focus on how your arguments relate to tangible outcomes and practical implications.

3. Respect and Decorum: I expect each team to respect each other. Please be courteous and respond to every argument mentioned by the opposing team. Debates should be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and professionalism.

4. Time Limits: It is crucial to respect the time limits for each speech. Proper time management reflects well on your organization and preparation skills.

5. Educational Value and Fairness: I care deeply about the educational value of the round and maintaining fairness throughout. Ultimately, my decision will be based on which team presents the best-weighed impacts. Make sure your arguments are well-structured and educational.

6. Tabula Rasa Approach: I am fairly tabula rasa, which means I do not have preconceived notions about the arguments you should make. Feel free to read any argument, but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and why it matters in the greater context of the round.

7. Impact Emphasis: Emphasize why your arguments matter and clearly articulate why I should choose your team over the other in the Summary and Final Focus. This includes weighing impacts and explaining the significance of your arguments in the broader context.
8. Note-Taking: I enjoy taking notes either on my device or on paper during the debate. Do not worry if we do not maintain eye contact throughout the round.

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

I am a judge with lots of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the US. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.

I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

A good argument is one where there is a logical connection between the assumptions presented and the final conclusion.

I value the following:

1. A debater who can speak clearly and at a good pace
2. That emphasizes important statements or facts
3. Who doesn't speed
4. Who has a strong sense of professionalism
5. Show that they have listened to the other team while they have spoken
6. Has good knowledge of the topic

Be the BEST YOU, you can be!

Good luck!

PF Paradigm:

This will be my first time being a judge. I value consistency within the team, clear and concise explanations, and effective use of evidence. The two speakers within a team are expected to argue as a team rather than two individuals. Arguments are expected to be easy to follow and note down. Try to be concise and speak at a moderate speed. Speakers can be passionate but should avoid being too emotional, disrespectful language or behaviors, like head shaking and eye-rolling, are not welcomed. Evidence should be effectively used to communicate arguments, which means demonstrating why your opponent's points are wrong is equally important as presenting why your points are correct.

Hello speakers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have taught courses in presentation skills, debate, public speaking, etc, in my past teaching careers. This is the second time that I've judged this event.

As always, a wise debater would slow down slightly in front of me. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed is okay. But I really do prefer listening to rounds conducted at something more about a natural pace.I don't have a preference as long as they have credible evidence and it applies to the round.

I may need to know about the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for, so make sure it's explained. I'm visible regarding reactions to specific arguments, and it will be obvious if I’m confused about what is going on.

If you're debating policy, try to have some original thoughts. I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

Meanwhile, I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident, or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun.

I value logical consistency. Facts are more important to me than feelings. Word quality is superior to word quantity.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

1. Speak/enunciate clearly and 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 will lose the round.

2. Empirical evidence > emotional argument. I like the former. You will not win the round by trying to use the latter.

3. I like logic and a well thought out/planned case. I like to connect the dots.

4. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. Be respectful. You’re both here for the same reason.

When evaluating a speech and debate competition, it is important to have a set of clear and objective criteria that capture the essence of effective speaking and argumentation. Here are my proposed evaluation criteria for a speech and debate tournament:

Content Clarity:

The speaker should present a clear and focused argument, with a well-defined main point and supporting evidence.

The speech should be logically structured, including an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Originality and Creativity:

The speaker should demonstrate an ability to think critically and present original ideas or perspectives.

Creative use of examples, analogies, or stories can enhance the persuasiveness of the argument.

Argumentation Skills:

The speaker should be able to defend their position effectively, using logical reasoning and evidence to counter opposing arguments.

The ability to anticipate and respond to potential counterarguments strengthens the speech.

Delivery Skills:

The speaker should have a confident and engaging delivery, with appropriate use of voice modulation, pace, and gesture.

Good eye contact and audience engagement are key for connecting with listeners.

Language Use:

The language should be clear, concise, and appropriate for the audience.

The use of complex vocabulary and grammatical structures should be accurate and not detract from the clarity of the speech.

Response to Feedback:

In debate rounds, the speaker should be able to adapt their argument in response to feedback and counterarguments from the opponent.

Flexibility and responsiveness to new information are key skills in debate.

Ethical Conduct:

The speaker should maintain a respectful and ethical tone throughout the competition, avoiding personal attacks or unfounded accusations.

Adherence to the rules and guidelines of the competition is essential.

Audience Impact:

The speaker should strive to connect with the audience, making their speech relevant and engaging for listeners.

A successful speech leaves the audience thinking about the issue in a new way.

Using these criteria, judges can evaluate the performance of participants in a speech and debate competition in a fair and consistent manner. Each criterion can be weighted according to its importance for the specific competition, and the overall scores can be tallied to determine the winners.

PF

• In my view, the goal of debate is to educate debaters on both the topic area and the practice of debating.
• I come to the debate expecting the debaters to explain not just what their arguments are, but why they matter and, more importantly, why I should vote on them.
• Overall, I will evaluate a debate based on the analysis given in the Final Focus as to why a team should win the round. If that analysis is inconclusive or unpersuasive I will work backward across my flow until I can find an RFD.
• The role of the summary speaker is to summarize. Summary speakers who do 3 minutes of rebuttal will be penalized speaker points.
• I do not flow crossfire. The way I see it, CF is for the debaters to clarify the debate and bring new information to light. Nothing in CF will ever be a voting issue unless it is brought up later in a speech.
• I don't care about dropped arguments unless I'm told a reason why dropping that argument matters.
• Doing evidence check will result in a loss of speaker points. It is a waste of everyone's time. If you missed something, ask about it in crossfire.
• Doing evidence check and not actually analysing the evidence in the following speech will result in an even greater loss of speaker points.
• If the tournament allows, I will give oral feedback in addition to the feedback on the ballot.

This will be my first time participating as a judge. I value communication, clear explanations, and a dynamic debate. Making new arguments against an opponent is more persuasive than just referring to one's own points as it generates new offense on the flow instead of just extending old defense. The same also applies for defense, where one should ideally present reasons as to why an opponent's attack is wrong instead of just insisting that one's own point is correct "just because". You should speak clearly and prioritize logic and reason. For speech, I value a clear voice, sincerity, evidence, expression, and directness.

As a judge with experience in multiple tournaments, including the BASIS International Bilingual Schools China Championship and several other regional events, I am excited to evaluate your speeches and debates. Although my judging experience has primarily been in Public Forums, I have also judged speech events.

Here are some key aspects I will be considering in your rounds:

Speeches:

Content and Organization: A compelling speech should be built upon a well-researched and thoughtfully organized foundation. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points, provide solid evidence and logical reasoning, and effectively structure their speech to maximize impact.

Delivery and Style: The way a speaker delivers their message can be just as important as the message itself. I will assess the speaker's ability to engage the audience through their voice, body language, and overall stage presence. A speaker who can captivate the audience and effectively convey their message is essential to success in speech events.

Originality and Creativity: A genuinely memorable speech often incorporates elements of ingenuity and creativity. I will consider how well the speaker uses unique perspectives, storytelling, and other creative techniques to enhance their message and make it stand out.

Public Forum:

Strength and Clarity of Contentions: A persuasive argument builds on solid, well-defined contentions. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points and provide solid evidence and logical reasoning. The ability to convey one's message convincingly and effectively engage the audience is essential to success in a Public Forum.

Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: Rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos are powerful tools for persuasion and connection with the audience. I will assess the speaker's skill in incorporating these elements into their speech, as they help establish a convincing case and engage the audience on multiple levels.

Respectful Conduct toward Judges and Opponents: Maintaining a respectful demeanor throughout the debate is crucial for fostering a healthy and constructive environment. I will consider how well the speaker demonstrates respect toward their opponents, upholds the principles of fair play, and maintains professionalism. A speaker who engages in respectful behavior shows their ability to engage in civil discourse and understand the importance of maintaining a positive and inclusive atmosphere for the audience.

I look forward to being your judge and hearing your speeches and contentions!

Hi! I'm Mr. Judson, the BISZ Middle School Speech and Debate teacher. I have been a Speech and Debate teacher for the last 5 years, focusing on Asian Parliamentary Debate, and I transitioned to teaching Public Forum Debate this year. As a head coach, I have not officially judged since 2019, but I still observe plenty of rounds.

For competitive fairness, I believe judges need to be a blank slate, thus it is your responsibility to tell me everything. You cannot infer my knowledge about a topic as I will have none, so clearly establishing background information is important.

For content, I value analysis over evidence. In my opinion, data is a tool to support your ideas and explanation. It should not be your main explanation. A good debater does not just throw information at opponents, but rather contextualizes and explains those key facts. Of course, you are not an expert in the field we're debating on, so evidence is still absolutely needed, but you should focus on logically explaining the reasoning and then setting up that evidence to be presented. In addition, I really like clear roadmapping, just a personal preference so I can organize my ballot is all.

Summary speeches should clearly expand arguments first and foremost with rebuttals acting as a secondary. Additional arguments raised in crossfire will be not weighed less unless expanded upon in the summary. On the other hand, I view final focus as a time to build a more emotionally charged impact-based speech.

I prefer to allow students moderate their own timing and interactions, and take more of a passive role in moderating debates. If a student is very rude or disrespectful, then I will step in as needed.

PF:

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

1. Speak/enunciate clearly and do not speed. If you are used to speeding, then learn to judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying, then you will lose the round.

2. Empirical evidence > emotional argument. I like the former. You will not win the round by trying to use the latter.

3. I like logic and a well-thought-out/planned case. I like to connect the dots.

4. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertiveness, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. Be respectful. You’re both here for the same reason.

Conduct

Civil in XF without excessive deference to one another, please.

Impacts

I like to see measurable benefits & harms. Long term considerations are good.

I don't like to see FF impacts suddenly inflated for hyperbolic effect. Keep it real please.

On disclosure

I am against disclosure. I accept and acknowledge that in round it can create better 'clash' however, I think it is toxic for the debate community as a whole. Frequently debaters exchange cards, and the debate system degenerates into a 'this card beats that one' where debaters are presenting rote learned arguments rather than engaging with the actual content of the topic at depth.

Call it a shibboleth of mine, but I do believe that a debate is a clash of ideas - and that this requires debaters to engage with the concepts in round, rather than rely on suggested responses generated by a team outwith. Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.

In any tournament where the rules do not actively require disclosure please take account of the above.

On evidence

Be willing to call for card checks on your opponents. Happy to see debaters offer fair and reasonable scrutiny of your opponents' research. It's part of the game and it is debater's duty to police proper use and application of research.

If the round hinges on a piece of evidence, I may ask to see the card. This is because our activity is based on empirical evidence and to ensure fairness and adherence principles of integrity.

On the nature of public forum

By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading eliminate its utility as a tool for learning how to communicate effectively to the public. The quality of analysis which has gone into a case read at speed simply to 'outrun' your opponent by their not having sufficient time to respond to your contentions is not something I usually find compelling.

I enjoy respectful and honest debates. I don't care about your pace, as long as you delivery clearly. Good luck!

In terms of delivery, I prefer a conversational speaking style that is clear and easy to follow. I believe that effective debaters are able to convey complex ideas in an accessible manner, without relying too heavily on technical jargon or rapid-fire delivery. That said, I do not penalize debaters for speaking at a faster pace, as long as their arguments remain coherent and well-articulated. My primary concern is ensuring that I can follow the logic of the debate and understand the nuances of the arguments being presented.

In my view, both argument quality and delivery style are important factors in determining the outcome of a debate round. I value debaters who are able to present well-researched, logically coherent arguments in a compelling and engaging manner. At the same time, I do not believe that style should come at the expense of substance. I am more persuaded by debaters who can effectively engage with and refute their opponents' arguments, rather than those who rely primarily on rhetorical flourishes or persona.

When assessing the arguments in a round, I consider factors such as the strength of the evidence provided, the logical coherence of the reasoning, the ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments, and the overall persuasiveness of the case. I am particularly persuaded by arguments that are grounded in real-world impacts and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic at hand.

In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to engage with each other in a respectful and professional manner. While passion and intensity are welcome, I do not condone personal attacks, disruptive behavior, or any actions that undermine the integrity of the round. I believe that debate should be a forum for the exchange of ideas, not a venue for interpersonal conflict.

I am currently a senior and the debate captain of BISZ. I have approximately 6 years of experience with PF debate and 3 years of experience with BP debate. I have competed in and judged many debate tournaments, including but not limited to NSDA, ISDC, and BIBSC. When judging, I flow all speeches given in the round but not crossfires or speeches that go over time. Debaters can speak as fast as they want and be appropriately aggressive as long as they enunciate clearly and remain respectful.