DEAR DEBATERS

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for your personal and intellectual growth. My philosophy as a judge is centered on three core principles:
1. Engagement and Learning: I see debate as an opportunity for you to explore, question, and learn. I appreciate when you engage deeply with the topics and arguments, seeking a better understanding of the issues at hand. Your involvement in debate is not just about winning rounds but about the journey of discovery and self-improvement.
2. Respect and Inclusivity : Respect for your fellow debaters is paramount. In the spirit of civil discourse, I encourage you to engage in debates with respect, empathy, and an open mind.
Promote inclusivity by valuing diverse perspectives, and ensure that your arguments and responses maintain a tone of respect and professionalism.
3. Clarity and Adaptability: Effective communication is a cornerstone of debate. I encourage you to present your arguments clearly and logically. While I appreciate confidence , remember that clarity is equally important. Additionally, adaptability in responding to your opponents' arguments and changing debate dynamics is a valuable skill. Being flexible in your approach shows your ability to think on your feet.

I also want to emphasize that, as a judge, I aim to be impartial and unbiased. I will evaluate your arguments based on their merit, adherence to the debate format, and overall persuasiveness, rather than my personal beliefs.

KASONDE CHILESHE

Age:24

Location: Hangzhou, China

College: Zhejiang Universty of Science and Technology

Current Occupancy: Student in college

Tabroom email: kaykasondechileshe@gmail.com

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

I have participated in Public Forum and British parliamentary styles of debating as a competitor for over 10 years. I have judged Public forum and WSDA debates for a little over 2 years to date.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Its good as long as one takes care to fully pronounce their words and finish sentences while maintaining to stay on track and taking care to articulate ones arguments with as much coherence as possible.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

A little of it done in a modest manner with finesse is good. One needs it to give their arguments in a manner that shows an utmost belief in ones arguments and position. Without it, one can be taken for granted and be interjected unnecessarily throughout the debate and general life settings.

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

By analyzing the overall impact from the debaters. Considering the framework one uses and their coherence to it while giving arguments whose impact is both logical and applicable to life settings that it is easy to support ones arguments. The delivery and articulation of ones arguments also factors in when deciding the winner of a debate.

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

In articulation of arguments, pick a framework and stick to it. Either go in with force and clearly and logically analyze ones arguments or go in with softness of voice yet stern to give ones arguments. Also take note that a well analyzed argument with enough points backing it will do more than multiple arguments that ain’t thoroughly developed

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

A. 0-5

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

C. I write down the points I think are important and focus more on the overall presentation.

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

B. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

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

10

10.How important is framework to your decision making?

8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

8

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

5

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

7

14. How fast should students speak?

Enough to be thoroughly understood and for them to communicate with their intended audience( the Judges and the other team)

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.

Hi All,

This is John, currently a first yeart at UBCV. I have had experience in both parliament debate styles in Canada for over 2 years and PF mainly in the chinese circuit for over 4 years, during which I won and top spoke numerous tournaments and many other awards.

Awards don't make a judge so I won't go into them, so let's go over my standards of judging. I'll talk about the most concerned issues in this paradigm - Speed and Speaks. Other than that, I welcome all kinds of arguement so please feel free to talk about Ks, non-PF args or any other if you like. You might wonder how do you win? Just do your best and I'll see if it's enough :) . In some rounds I might give win based on the number of clashes won by a team, in other's I might give based the imperativeness/importance of arguements, or which team is more aligned with their args. So, just do what you gotta do!

Essential Notes:

Be happy, be nice to others in the round. I might give you free speaks if you act kindly or vice versa.

Speed:

I'm ok with anything around 200 words per minute, but anything beyond that, especially when you have a bunch of numbers/stats/fancy words together, you are at a high risk of losing me. I will continue to flow down whatever I can, but I'll leave a note in your speaker comment area saying "your speech has gone mad". If you wondered why you said certain points in refutation, summary... but I did not have those down on my RFD, you would know why after you saw the comment above. So, be sure to slow down when you have important links or numbers you want me to write down.

Speaks:

Important Note:

1. NO "30s" roadmap, please.
2. If you say you are going to implicate on something later and you didn't, I might duct [or not based on tournament rules] your speech by 0.5 as this is going to occupy part of my cognitive resources which affects my ability to flow.

Your speaks auto a 27.5.

For the first speaker on each team:

1. If you gave me a clear, direct, and impactful case that's being delivered in a coherent manner, I would increase your speaks by 0.5.
2. If you were able to offer me some creative and unique points and I found those arguements concrete and topic-relatable, I would give you an additional 0.5 to you.
3. Summary/second rebuttal should collapse regardless of wether you are on Team A or Team B - I would give you another 0.5 if did a good job at collapsing (weighing as well). I prefer you to run-over in your summary (If you did this fabulously, you are guaranteed minumum 29.5) but you can structured the speech in any form you like.
4. The 1 point left would be based on your performance during the first CF and grand CF.

For the second speaker on each team:

1. You should start weighing in your refutation. If you do good weighings I'll increase your speaks by 0.5-1. Don't give me a million warrant turns, as you are just "neutralizing" their arguments which doesn't tell me why they are wrong.
2. If you want to disprove their warrant card/impact card, you need to talk about the research methods or other technical loopholes in their cards (please do not worry as I have preliminary knowledge, and If you did this fabulously, you are guranteed a minumum 29.5). However, if you wanted to point out something that wasn't mention in their cards or they were cherry-picking on their cards - mention it in your speech and I'll ask (You might have to remind me).
3. Impact turns are more than welcomed! If you offer me good impact turns I'll give you an anditional 0.5. Non-uqinueness and impact minimization gives you a 0.25-0.5 increment depends on how you say them. I'll also consider logic-based refutation/paradox... if you mentioned this when the materials allow, I would give you a 0.25-0.5 increment.
4. Final Focus should be focused on clashes. I wouldn't consider arguments that were dropped even if you mention them because they were essentially excluded from the debate, so both team regarded them as "unimportant". The only exception is if the arguments dropped were constantly reminded by a team. I'll reward a 0.5 increment (if your current score allows) if you were able to point out something that's really important but was not revealed. Of course, it has to be related to the previous materials as well.

Disclaimer:

These criterion are what I can think on the top of my mind for a "One of the best speech". You can definitely amaze me with something else! Be creative! Be bold! Plus there might be round where you just can not perform certain part above, so I'll be mindful of that and adjust my rating, however do be mindful I'm not going to give you comparative rating, which means how strong your opponent doesn't affect the speaks you receive, it's all standard rating of the techniques you show me.

NAME :MAGUNDA TAROPAFADZWA

FRAMEWORK

l prioritize framework, which involves deciding which issues are of paramount importance. The fundamental priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis and effective use of evidence.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE WINNER

-To decide the winner, I will assess the clarity and strength of the arguments presented by each team. The team which has strong communication skills has a more persuasive and engaging performance. Also, respect and decorum for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate, despite the arguments.

-I also consider how well the debators present their arguments. The arguments should be clear, well-structured and organized so as to make it easier for judges and audience to follow the debate.

One of the pivotal things is to assess whether arguments presented by each team ia relevant to the topic of the debate. Deviation from the topic of debate lessens the team's chance to win.

-A winning team should should engage with strongest arguments presented by the opposition team and effectively refute them.

The use of relevant evidence and examples to support argument is very vital. I also assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name:MAGUNDA TAROPAFADZWA

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

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

2. Tell us about your debating experience.

a.I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

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

3. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

4. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c.I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

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

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

a.Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

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

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

6. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a.It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

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

The outcome of a debate depends on various factors, such as the strength of arguments presented, the persuasiveness and clarity of communication, the ability to address counterarguments effectively, and the audience's subjective interpretation and judgment.In assessing a debate,I consider factors such as logical reasoning, evidence-based arguments, coherence of ideas, ability to rebut opposing viewpoints, presentation skills (such as clarity and organization), use of rhetoric or persuasive techniques, and adherence to debate rules or guidelines.Ultimately, determining the winner of a debate is subjective and can vary depending on perspectives and interpretations. It's important to note that debates are not necessarily about finding an absolute "winner" but rather about promoting dialogue, exchanging ideas, challenging assumptions,and arriving at a better understanding of complex issues.

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

Active listening: I carefully listen to the debators arguments and l consider each point made before reaching a decision. Active listening involves paying attention to both content and delivery, as well as asking clarifying questions if necessary.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

e.

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

a.

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

c

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b

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

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

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

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

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

As a judge, I evaluate debates based on the quality of arguments, presentation, and strategy. My primary focus is on the clarity, logic, and persuasive power of the arguments presented. I prioritize teams that present well-structured, evidence-based arguments that effectively address the topic.

Effective presentation is also crucial, as I consider the clarity, concision, and delivery of speeches. I assess the teams' ability to communicate their arguments clearly and persuasively, taking into account factors such as body language, tone, and pace.

Strategy is another key aspect of debate that I evaluate. I consider the teams' approach to the topic, including their ability to identify key issues, counterarguments, and effective rebuttals. I assess their ability to allocate time effectively, ensuring that all points are covered, and arguments are fully developed.

When evaluating rebuttals and counterarguments, I consider the teams' ability to respond to opponents' arguments, challenge assumptions, and present effective counterarguments. I also assess the credibility and relevance of sources used to support arguments.

Ultimately, my decision is based on which team presents the most persuasive case, taking into account all of the above criteria. While I strive to be impartial, I tend to favor teams that present clear, concise, and well-structured arguments, use credible sources and evidence, and demonstrate effective time management and organization.

As a judge, I adapt my paradigm to align with the specific rules and guidelines of each tournament, ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of debates.

The Standard for my Decision at the Debate

In making my decision at the debate, I will be evaluating teams based on their ability to present clear, logical, and persuasive arguments that effectively address the topic. My standard for decision is as follows: I will assess whether teams have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the topic, identified key issues, and presented relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will also evaluate their ability to respond to opponents' arguments, adapt to the debate's progression, and demonstrate effective time management and strategic thinking. Ultimately, I will award the team that presents the most compelling case, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic and the ability to persuasively communicate their arguments, while also adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.