NHSDLC Online 3
2024 — CN
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePublic 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:
-
Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.
-
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.
-
Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.
-
Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.
-
Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.
-
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:
-
Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.
-
Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.
-
Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.
-
Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.
-
Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.
-
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:
-
Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.
-
Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.
-
Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.
-
Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.
-
Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.
-
Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.
I define myself as a Flay Judge, and most of my judging experiences have been in public speaking and storytelling.
Debate Judging background
· 2022 FALL THE 4th National Invitational Forensics Tournament NIFT
· Public Forum NHSDLC HZ Training
· 2022 NHSDLC Fall Hangzhou Tournament
· Harvard Asian Junior Debate Tournament China National
How I judge
I base it mostly on which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument. I deliberate on the overall presentation based on the arguments presented in the round.
Other specifics about my judging style
- I don't mind if you speak too fast, I’m not going to say anything until I've been given permission to speak or interfere. It's just that, I won't be able to validate your arguments if I can't comprehend what you're saying, unless you are very articulate, and your pronunciation is clear and accurate. If you spread, I'd still try to take note, however, I’m very fussy with articulation so if I won't understand you, I’d probably just stop flowing. Even though I do signposting, I also use dictator software or an app to thoroughly follow your argumentation, so if you spread and are disorderly, so is my flow or I’d rather just stop flowing. Take note that attempting to win just because your opponent cannot answer all of your points due to your spreading indicates that you do not believe your arguments will stand up during a debate.
- As judges attempt to dismiss their own biases and experiences when judging, and we may or may not be knowledgeable on the issue, it all comes down to how you present your arguments or reasoning. You may have done a fantastic six-page study but knowing how you compress ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A TWO-MINUTE SPEECH is what matters. Please do not just say, "So judge, please vote for us," to fill in the gaps between your closing arguments, especially if it is a one-on-one debate. Furthermore, the summary is where improvements are most crucial. In summation, if you don't expound on things, don't bring them up in the final focus.
- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I may intervene on behalf of opposing teams. Be courteous, especially in times of conflict. If you're unsure if you should be sassy, don't be. I will deduct points for impolite behavior because this is an educational exercise.
- Try not to be very scripted, and learn to rephrase your notes. Depending on how much time is left I may or may not provide oral RFDs, as I may also need more time to evaluate my flow.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.
Preferences:
- Signposting > roadmaps
- I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
- I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
- I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
- I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
- Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.
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.
1. What types of debate have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?
PF and BP. Have 6 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ WSDA, and 10+ DLC tournaments. Also, I did a half-year TA experience at Speechcraft in Chengdu, mainly for PF debate and speech.
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
I would consider the following three sections:
First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).
Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).
Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.
I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.
Tinaye Tsinakwadi
Tournaments judged in the past year
- more than 11 tournaments in the past year
- seasoned judge (+5 years of judging experience)
How many notes I take during the debate
- I try to take notes on everything.
- Details are essential to me, and I will analyze every major contention and write it down.
The main job of the summary speech
- Highlight major points of the clash and show how your team won.
- I prefer for summary speeches to be in retrospect of the entire debate.
- So less about raising arguments, but rather putting arguments to rest.
On a scale of 1-10, How important is defining the topic to my decision making (2)
- Unless it is an addition on top of the common definition.
- I prefer the standard definition, not arguing over technicalities.
How important is a framework to my decision making (5)
- more concerned with the consistency of your framework
- is it aligning well with your arguments
- can I trace back your decision-making to that framework etc?
How important is crossfire in my decision making (6)
- mostly using it to validate your arguments.
- use it to check whether your points hold weight.
- also to see which contention is better, should they clash.
- can be more crucial, in checking whether you can stand by your arguments, in the face of opposition.
How important is weighing in my decision making (8)
- Being able to compare and contrast is important to me.
- I need to know you can address your opponent's points and still show why yours are more important.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in my decision-making (2)
- It's better to sell your arguments.
- I encourage you to do it but won't penalize you if you don't.
How fast should students speak (7)
- I don't mind speed, but be eloquent and deliver your arguments well.
- If you are taking gasps of air, you are speaking too fast between speeches.
- Slightly above average would be the ideal speed for me.
I have experience judging PF debates both online and offline with NHSDLC over the past several months. When it comes to speaking speed, I find that a moderate pace is preferable for clear communication and easy understanding.
In terms of aggressiveness, it can be effective if done respectfully. Maintaining a professional tone is crucial, and personal attacks or disruptive gestures are never acceptable.
To determine the winner, I focus on the coherence and accuracy of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery. I don't entertain new arguments in the summary speech, emphasizing the consolidation of main points. The winner is typically the debater with the strongest, well-supported arguments and effective rebuttals. The goal is a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with the winner being the one who best achieves that objective.
lt is crucial for debaters to present their arguments in a clear and logical manner, following a chronological outline. To effectively persuade me and increase the chances of winning the debate, it is essential to support these arguments with concrete evidence. This evidence can be in the form of facts, statistics, expert opinions, or real-life examples, which add credibility and strength to your position.
Furthermore, a successful debater must not only present their arguments but also skillfully defend them against potential challenges from the opposing team. It is important to address and counter the assertions made by the opposition, as failing to do so may imply agreement or weaken your position.
Throughout the debate, it is crucial to maintain a civil and respectful tone. Engaging in a respectful manner fosters a healthy and constructive environment for discussion, allowing for a more productive exchange of ideas. By adhering to these principles, debaters can enhance their chances of success and effectively convey their viewpoints to the audience. Thank you.
Age: 27
College: JIANGSU UNIVERSITY
Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Economics and International Trade Student / Business Owner.
How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?
- 6-10
How many notes do you take during a debate?
- I try to take notes on literally everything
What is the main job of the summary speech?
-Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them
How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
- 3/10
How important is framework to your decision-making?
- 7/10
How important is crossfire in your decision-making?
- 5/10
How important is weighing in your decision-making?
- 8/10
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
- 4/10
How fast should students speak?
- 1-10 (feel free to speak as fast as you please)
What types of debate have you participated before, and how long is your debate career?
-High school Debate team (2 years)
-Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2020.
-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2021.
-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2022.
How do you consider fast-talking?
-It can be a great skill and strategy to deploy during the debate.
-I consider speaking at around 300 words per minute to be fast, of course words should be clearly pronounced and consistent throughout the speech.
-I type at 100 wpm, so you can be confident I will be getting down everything you say.
How do you consider aggressiveness?
-When the debater is confrontational or actively attacks the opponent’s arguments (expected)
-On the extreme side, when the debater resorts to excessive interruptions, aggression, shouting or personal attacks towards their opponents to undermine their arguments (not tolerated).
How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
Here are the 3 points I use to determine the winner:
-Clarity and organization: The debater who presents their arguments in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.
-Strong arguments and evidence: The strength of the arguments presented, supported by relevant and compelling evidence.
-Rebuttal and refutation: Effectively addressing and countering opponents' arguments is crucial. The ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' positions, provide counterarguments, and refute their points with sound reasoning and evidence.
Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
-Mutual respect and Politeness go a long way.
-Respect time.
I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.
Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.
Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash
Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.
Name: JUDGE PIUS
I am Pius Mwangi, an experienced debate judge with a preference for moderate-paced speakers. My background includes active participation in both junior and senior debates during high school, which has provided me with a profound understanding of debate dynamics and argumentation techniques. As a judge, I prioritize fair and impartial evaluation, assessing debates based on the strength of arguments, the quality of evidence, and effective communication. I appreciate a balance between substance and style, valuing both strong arguments and engaging delivery. Relevance to the topic is crucial in my assessments, and I emphasize clarity, logical coherence, use of evidence, and rebuttal skills. I am dedicated to providing constructive feedback to help debaters improve, and I am meticulous about timekeeping to ensure fairness. Beyond judging, I am committed to mentoring and supporting young debaters, nurturing their persuasive communication skills and passion for debate.
1. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?
6-10 TOURNAMENTS
2. How many notes do you take during a debate?
I TRY TO TAKE NOTES ON EVERYTHING
3. What is the main job of the summary speech?
HIGHLIGHT THE MAJOR POINTS OF CLASH AND SHOW HOW YOUR TEAM WON THEM
ON A SCALE OF 1–10.
4. How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
5
5. How important is framework to your decision making?
3
6. How important is cross-fire in your decision-making?
7
7. How important is weighing in your decision-making?
9
8. How important are persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
8
9. How fast should students speak?
FAST PACED IS OKAY, BUT I PREFER MODERATE SPEAKING AS IT EASIER FOR ME TO NOTE ALL THE MAJOR POINTS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND TO FOLLOW THROUGH.
I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.
I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.
julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains
from planet debate-
this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.
topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.
cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.
das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.
critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.
others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.
from debateresults...
Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.