Impromptu Speaking:

I’m looking for students who:

1.     Present mastery of the mechanics of speech: poise, quality and use of voice, bodily expressiveness, and for the qualities of directness and sincerity.

2.     Present a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.

3.     Begin by making a clear point on the chosen topic, demonstrate a reasonable explanation of that point, offer examples to illustrate that point, and end with clear, decisive closing remarks.

Original Oratory:

I’m looking for students who:

1.     Present mastery of the mechanics of speech: poise, quality and use of voice, bodily expressiveness, and for the qualities of directness and sincerity.

2.     Follow a clear structure that contains all of these pieces:

a.     Introduction

b.     Outlined problem

c.     Evidenced-based support

d.     Solution(s)

e.     Conclusion

3.     Present a clear thesis and support it throughout the oratory.

4.     Memorize and present oratory fluidly to the audience.

5.     Motivate and inspire audience to reconsider the problem and presented solutions and act.

I am looking to see your ability to clearly articulate your points, use positive body language, a strong voice, and eye contact. Speakers should work to persuade/inform with confidence. Convince with facts and persuade with information and genuine, clear arguments.

It takes courage to stand in front of a crowd and present, so I value every student's participation in these events. I will try my very best to be fair and help young people grow and find new confidence.

Firstly, and most important - no spreading (speed reading).

I prefer to hear arguments based on logic; statistics are useful but please do not try to drown me in numbers.

I do want rational arguments, I will not be swayed by sentimentally.

Don't be aggressive with your opponents, be polite and civil.

Hello!

I value clear communication, soundly researched arguments, and a strong sense of professionalism amongst participants. A strong team, for me, will be one that balances advanced public speaking skills with building their arguments. I have a low tolerance for teams to make personal attacks against their opponents during their debates.

I am excited to hear what you have to share, today. The most proficient speakers have a good and original use of rhetoric, appropriate pacing, and grounded explanations.

About me:

I am a 6th grade English teacher so I have lots of experience hearing students express their opinions.

Basics:

Avoid speaking too quickly and focus on clearly expressing your argument.

I value communication and clear explanations and evidence.

Argument preference:

I will vote for an argument that is explained well and warranted.

I like when an argument is entertaining as well as persuasive.

1. Speech content:
The speaker’s topic should be clear and informative;
The speaker’s language is natural, fluent and full of true feelings;
Have your own opinions in some aspects.

2. Language expression:
The speaker is familiar with the speech material and completely unscripted;
The speaker has a loud voice, clear enunciation, standard pronunciation, appropriate speaking speed, fluent expression, and a suitable tone.

3. Image and demeanor:
Speakers are required to be neatly dressed, dignified and elegant, behave naturally and appropriately, and reflect a vibrant spirit;
The speaker is polite.

4. Comprehensive impression:
A successful presentation makes the audience think about the content of the presentation in new ways.
Using these guidelines, judges can fairly and consistently evaluate participants' performance in acting competitions. Each criterion can be weighted according to its importance in the specific competition, and the total score can then be aggregated to determine the winner.

When it comes to debate, I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. I do not like speed-talking (spreading). Please do not do that.

A good debater is someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while they have spoken and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.

Good luck to all of you! Win or lose, participating in speech and debate teaches you skills that will benefit you greatly!

Be confident, be creative and enjoy yourself!

I appreciate well-organized speeches with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. I look for you to use language effectively to convey your message. I expect speakers to maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout their speeches. Disrespectful language, offensive content, or personal attacks are not acceptable.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge and here is what I am looking for.

• Strong original arguments - not a direct repeat of your resource package.
• Quality over quantity (watch your speed)
• Clear, concise, easy to follow
• Crossfire rounds show me if you listened to your opponent
• Convince me with your arguments

Good luck and I look forward to seeing you compete.

First time judge, long time reader of arguments.

My top priority is to ensure that each side presents a clear and appropriate argument. I will sign my ballot to the team with the argument that is best supported.

I need to be able to hear what is being said clearly. Otherwise evidence presented could be dismissed.

Evidence could come from a variety of sources, but I am looking to ensure that you are using it to actually support your argument.

In your FF, be sure to clearly lay out a summary of why you should win.

For speech I am looking for good flow from start to finish. That your speech follows a logical structure that supports the topic you are speaking on. Clear articulation, pace of voice, and use of body language to support your speech goes a long way. For interp I am looking at how you bring your characters to life and we've it into your speech.

For debates I value clear communication and delivery of arguments. I am looking for logical arguments and rebuttals with reasonably paced speaking and clear evidence. Focus on your argument and maintain good sportsmanship throughout the rounds. Having judged debate in the past one of the difficulties is competitors speaking to quickly causing me to miss out on important information they are trying to deliver. If the judge misses your point it can cause them to become lost in your argument and miss key information.

A good debater is one who speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible. I do not like spreading. It is unlikely you will win the debate if you are using this tactic.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

I come to the debate with a clear slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will effect society.

I appreciate presenters who are well prepared, coherent and enthusiastic about their message.

Judging Paradigm:

As a science teacher with a passion for nurturing critical thinking skills, I bring a unique perspective to debate and public speaking competitions. My judging philosophy centers around the importance of logic, facts, and rigorous research. I firmly believe that a well-structured argument supported by solid evidence is the foundation of persuasive communication. While I appreciate effective communication and delivery, my primary focus is on the substance of the arguments presented.

Teaching and Coaching Approach:

My experience as a science teacher has influenced my approach to coaching. I encourage students to challenge conventional norms and explore ideas independently. I appreciate when participants take the initiative to delve into the subject matter, even if their conclusions differ from established knowledge. I emphasize the importance of accuracy by encouraging students to back their arguments with references, citing sources, articles, or quotes.

Expectations for Participants:

Confidence is a valued trait in participants, as it allows them to present their ideas effectively, even when faced with opposing viewpoints. While I respect thorough preparation and research, I also appreciate students who can rely on their general knowledge and logical reasoning to support their positions. It's crucial for participants to strike a balance between passion and tenacity, ensuring that their emotions enhance their arguments rather than detract from them.

Debate or Speech Format Preferences:

I have no specific preferences for debate formats or speech categories. In my view, logic should prevail in any format, and every debate or speech provides an opportunity for valuable learning, particularly through reflecting on losses and improving for the future.

Advice and Guidance for Students:

To succeed in debates and speeches, I advise students to prioritize confidence and logical reasoning. Challenge conventional wisdom and seek to understand complex topics deeply. Embrace the power of research and solid evidence to support your arguments. Remember that learning from your losses is a valuable part of the educational journey in debate.

Judge Portfolio:

World Impromptu Public Speaking Champion

TED & TEDx Coach | 4x TEDx Speaker

First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies

Specialising in Virtual, Hybrid, AR, VR & Holographic Presentations & Research

Judged over 1000+ Speech Contests (International & Local - E.g. NSDA, USAD, HOSA, WSDA 21st Century, Star of Outlook TM, Startups etc)

17 years Public Speaking Experience

*Unique X-Factor: Trained with people with disabilities, refugees and rehabiliated prisoners, while judging related contests*

Students’ Achievements - Trained and Coached over 50000 students including CEOs and GM roles

Students winning World Champion in Public Speaking (Virtual), Startups, Debates etc.

Getting on the Guinness World Record, TED and TEDx Stage.

For Public Speaking related - I am here to know you, your ideas and your potential to help you grow to be a better speaker. I am also here to learn with you if you have something amazing to teach us. (Open) I am open to any style and if you can be “yourself”, that’s a bonus!

However, trash talk is a big no-no in my books. I can tell whether someone use a script, memorise and not using their own choice words, moreover, an AI script, so be warned as I am one of the founders in this realm.

For Debate: I look with a simple assessment: PREP - Point, Reason, Examples, Presentation Style and format.

After the first initial round of assessment: I will start looking critically at every point, tracing the credibility, relatability as well as your crossfire performance.

What stands out? What do I learn? What am I amazed by? What insights may have been overlooked? These are the questions that I will ask myself.

Clarity stands out. Even when it’s fast, emphasis on main points are highly recommended.

The tick-off: We respect you for your time, I hope that you respect us for our time. If you didn’t prepare, we will know!

Clearly speaking

speak every word clearly and use suitable phrases to express his or her own opinion. It's not difficult to understand the meaning of the speech. Also the pronuncication of the speech is lovely and appropriate.

Suitable rythm

the pause and rythm of the speech is suitable and comfortable, which serves important role in understanding the meaning of the speech. The speaker is familiar with his or her speech, so there are not too many unecessary pauses during the speech. Also, the speaker is not speaking to fast or too slow, which might sound uncomfortable.

Showing confidence

the speaker might show his or her confidence by smiling all the time or use some suitable gestures to help with his or her speaking, which seems diginified.

Emotional

The speaker can use suitable tones and rythm to show his or her topic ot speach, which might inspire the listeners.

Content-related

the contents of the speech are all related to his or her speech, and support his or her speech strongly. Everything goes smoothly and nicely.

Hello, my name is Sophia, and I am excited to be judging this event. Here are the key principles that will guide my evaluation:

1. Clear Structure:

- I place a high value on a speech that has a well-defined structure. Your arguments should be organized in a clear and logical manner.

2. Delivery:

- Please ensure your delivery is slow and clear to make your audience can follow well.

3. Vivid Language:

- Use of vivid and descriptive language is a plus.

- Creativity in language can make your speech stand out, but clarity should not be sacrificed for style.

4. Content and Evidence:

- Relevance of evidence to your points will be a key factor in my evaluation.

5. Engagement:

- Engage with the topic and your audience. Persuasiveness and the ability to maintain audience interest are important.

- Responding to counterarguments thoughtfully will demonstrate your depth of understanding and adaptability.

I am looking forward to hearing your speeches and wish you all the best in this competition!

I have never judged debate before but ​I value communication, simple rhetoric, and clear explanations.

I will consider the following key factors when assessing speeches:Clarity and organization of the argument; Use of evidence, logic, and reasoning to support the central claims; Vocal skills (volume, pace, articulation, modulation),Physical presence and gestures; Persuasiveness and ability to engage the audience.

Speech Paradigm:

What I Value:

- Clarity: Make sure your speech is easy to understand.
- Focus: Have a clear purpose and stay on track.
- Structure: Present a clear beginning, middle, and end.
- Engagement: Capture the audience’s attention and drive them to your point.
- Support: Use relevant examples, facts, and evidence.

Types of Speeches:
- Informative: Teach me something new. Break down complex ideas into simple terms and use visuals if necessary.
- Persuasive: Convince me with a well-reasoned argument, backed by strong evidence and emotional appeal.
- Extemporaneous: Show your ability to think on your feet. Be clear, concise, and relevant. Stay calm and collected.
- Interpretive: Bring your piece to life. Show strong characterization and emotional depth. Make me feel the story.

A Tip: Speak like you’re explaining to a grandparent, not a Google search.

Debate Paradigm:

What I Value:
- Clarity and Coherence: Present your arguments in a clear, logical, and organized manner. Avoid jargon unless you explain it well.
- Evidence and Support: Use credible sources and concrete evidence to back up your claims. Quality over quantity.
- Argumentation: Develop a strong, central claim and support it thoroughly. Refute opposing arguments effectively.
- Responsiveness: Address your opponent’s points directly and refute them logically. Show that you are actively engaging with their arguments.
- Delivery: Speak confidently and clearly. Maintain good eye contact and avoid reading directly from your notes.
- Strategy: Demonstrate strategic thinking by prioritizing the most important points and managing your time effectively.
- Cross-Examination: Ask insightful questions and answer questions directly and succinctly. Use this time to clarify and strengthen your position.

A Tip: Debate like you’re in a game of chess, not dodgeball.

I am looking forward to being here!

I value effective use of voice, including variations in tone, pitch, and pace. A good speaker should be able to use their voice to emphasize key points and keep the audience engaged.

I am looking for passionate speakers. A passionate speaker is one who believes in their message and conveys it with enthusiasm and conviction. For both Speech Events and PF, I value speeches that reflect genuine emotion and commitment, making the audience feel the speaker's fervor.

For Speech Events: Body language plays a crucial role in communication. I look for confident and purposeful gestures, good posture, and effective use of the space. Eye contact with the audience is also important in establishing a connection. Furthermore, originality and inventiveness are highly appreciated. Whether it’s through unique perspectives, innovative approaches, or imaginative storytelling, creativity can significantly enhance the impact on this judge.

For PF: I embrace the principles of open-mindedness, fairness, and logic. My commitment is to provide an impartial and objective evaluation of participants' performances. I value the exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints, ensuring that every speaker has an equal opportunity to be heard. I prioritize logical reasoning, evidence-based arguments, and effective communication. My role is to uphold the highest standards of fairness and equity in the midst of competitiveness. Please be respectful of each other. I don't want to hear any yelling.

This is my third time judging speech and debate. I am so excited to listen to your speeches. I am looking for solid reasoning and empirical evidence and preparation.

I believe in effective and respectful communication, well-researched and persuasive arguments, and promoting professionalism among all participants. A successful team should combine strong public speaking skills with well-structured and convincing arguments. I do not condone personal attacks against opponents during debates, as I believe in fostering constructive dialogue.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

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.

What is your debate background?

I have judged off and on for the last seven years during many NSDA speech and debate tournaments. During my 9 years of teaching in China I have been delighted to judge in around 40 tournaments (online and in person) and see so many talented students.

How do you judge?

I look for sound logic, good research practices and solid arguments. I go with my gut. I listen for style, delivery and overall flow. I look for debaters who deliver the whole package. I look for the debaters or teams who have "done their homework" and know what they are doing. The end result of the overall presentation is what matters to me.

Please explain other specifics about your judging style:

I am not impressed by speed...especially if the speaker begins to trip over their words and lose their focus, flow and grip over their listener. Just be yourself. Don't be what you think we want. Be yourself...everyone else is already taken!

I personally recognize a convincing speech or debate through three elements, that is, concrete evidence, rhetorical device, and on-site appealing performance.

I am not new to judging speech and debate, but I am new to this format. I will value well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. While pathos is also crucial in the art of persuasion, I will not enjoy any hints of derision or sarcasm directed at opposing teams during debate rebuttal.

For interpretive events, I will value originality and passion, while clear delivery is also important.

look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments。
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Emotional talking with good gestures helps but logical arguments are more important.

Hi debaters,

As I noticed majorly I will be judging Impromptu and PuFo, so my Paradigm is basically for them.

I'm a Middle School Dean, and I prefer discipline in the room. Please be respectful while you are speaking/preparing for your speech.

You do not need to change your style of speaking for me (speed, accent, rhythm…), if I missed anything, I would reach out and ask for it. But as English is not my first language, I do prefer debaters that speak with high clarity and mid-level speed.

Don’t use too much technical stuff, if you do, explain it in short. Otherwise, the argument will be lost on me.

Be nice to your opponents. There’s a difference between being aggressive in crossfire and being mean, don’t be mean. Please let your opponent complete their thought in crossfire before interrupting.

I value heavily when debaters telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things.

Wish you all have a great experience in BBSZ!

This is my first time judging speech or debate, but I do know what I value in an argument. Arguments must be clearly communicated in a way for other students and judges to understand. I also value quality and depth rather than a long list of shallower arguments. Arguments shall be judged without bias and purely on their strength, clarity, and quality.

I look for well prepared students who speak clearly and use things like varied volume, changes in pace, pausing for emphasis, and use of rhetorical strategies in their speaking as markers of good debaters. A good debater is also someone who shows that they have listened to the other team while and responds to what's being said in a way that shows knowledge of the topic and the ability to use logic and reason to adapt their own argument.

Hello, amazing presenters!

Speaking is an enjoyable thing to do and expressing yourself is a blessing in itself.

I would value a presenter who identifies with his or her role and is passionate about it from the bottom of his or her heart. At the same time, a good presenter should have an infectious voice and use body language to attract the audience's attention. In addition, the logic of the speech content is also critical, otherwise, the audience will find it a bit hard to follow up.

A little secret, one or two small bright spots will become an important plus point as well.

Believe in yourself. You'll do a great job!

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hypertechnical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters. There is a reason why Public Forum exists outside of Policy Debate and is why Public Forum has a larger tent and is more open to outsiders without extensive debate experience. A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner. 

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves. 

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.

I value clear organization of your argumentation, communication, and convincing rhetoric.

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hyper-technical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters.

A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner.

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments, and I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument. "Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "noncircumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find.

Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.

I prioritize clarity, engagement, and the ability to convey ideas in a compelling manner. I value both content and delivery, as they are equally important in making a speech memorable and impactful.

1. Content

• Relevance: The speech should be relevant to the topic and address the prompt effectively.
• Structure: A clear and logical structure is essential. This includes a clear flow of your speech.
• Creativity: Creative and original ideas are highly valued. I appreciate unique perspectives and innovative approaches.
• Persuasiveness: The speech should be persuasive and compelling, with a clear call to action or takeaway message.

1. Delivery

• Clarity: The candidate should articulate words clearly and use language that is appropriate for the audience.
• Confidence: Confidence and poise are crucial. The speaker should appear comfortable and in control.
• Engagement: Attract the audience! Use your way to make us engaged and connected.
• Time Management: Adhering to the allotted time is important. Going significantly over or under time can impact the overall effectiveness of the speech.