I have a background in judging World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, Public Forum, and British Parliamentary formats. I have been active (in high school and university debating) since 2013. I also have experience in coaching high school teams in BP and Asians format.

I appreciate speakers that are able to not only make comprehensive and well-analyzed arguments, but also argue the "meta" of the debate, and tell me why their arguments are the most important or relevant compared to the other team's contribution. I appreciate demonstration and discussing pragmatic benefits, but welcome principled argumentation as well. While I do use a timer, I also expect debaters to time themselves. If you have any questions or want feedback, feel free to approach me.

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.

Foremost: PLEASE speak in an audible manner, no spreading or muttering

-value clear framework

-value fluent logic

-value evidence

Looking for debaters to be persuasive

1.Judge’s Name

Feng Lujia

2.Tell us about your debate judging experience.

I have never judged debate before.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4.What is your speaking speed preference?

TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

cases, evidence, voting issues, impact weighing

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name

Huang Sirui

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 have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

arguments given in constructive speech, impact and clash weighing

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

no

judging philosophy:

1. Argumentation and Evidence: I value well-structured arguments supported by credible evidence. Debaters should ensure their claims are backed by reliable sources and logical reasoning. Unsupported assertions will not be given much weight.

2. Clarity and Communication: Clear and effective communication is essential. I appreciate debaters who articulate their points concisely and avoid unnecessary jargon. Speaking too quickly or unclearly can detract from the strength of your arguments. I prefer a slower, more deliberate speech style that ensures clarity and comprehension.

3. Engagement and Refutation: Active engagement with the opposing team's arguments is crucial. I look for debaters who not only present their own case but also effectively refute their opponents' points. Ignoring significant arguments from the other side can be detrimental.

4. Organization and Structure: A well-organized speech with a clear structure helps me follow the flow of the debate. Signposting and summarizing key points are highly appreciated.

5. Style and Delivery: While content is paramount, delivery also matters. I prefer speeches that are delivered slowly and clearly, ensuring that every point is understood. Confident and respectful delivery can enhance the persuasiveness of your arguments. However, aggressive or disrespectful behavior will negatively impact your score.

6. Flow and Impact Calculus: I keep a detailed flow (note-taking) of the debate. Debaters should help me understand the relative importance of their arguments through impact calculus—explaining why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents.

7. Flexibility and Adaptability: I respect a debater's ability to adapt to the flow of the debate and respond to unexpected arguments. Flexibility in strategy and quick thinking are valuable skills.

**Feedback and Scoring**

I provide constructive feedback at the end of the round, focusing on both strengths and areas for improvement. My scoring is based on a balance of content, delivery, and overall strategy. Each debater's performance is assessed individually, and the team with the most compelling and coherent case will be awarded the win.

1. Judge’s Name

NAME: ASHWIN

GENDER: MALE

INSTITUTION: NANJING UNIVERSITY

AGE: 24

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience. (e)

a. I have never judged debate before.

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

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

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

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience. (d)

a. I have never debated competitively before.

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

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

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

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

4. What is your speaking speed preference? (c)

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic? (d)

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

d. Other (Please Specify)

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

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well-argued out logical responses. I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed. In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.
Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

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

Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don't second guess your argument, if you do let it be inside don't show it

200wpm is the highest accepted.

Debate with logic and be influential instead of just throwing evidences at each other. I hate it when people hang on numbers or the cold pieces of evidences, think deeper into the origin, the mechanisms and why!

ANY act of Rudeness or Disrespects will be deducting your speaker points and affecting the result of the round.

My feedbacks tends to be more direct focusing on what could be improved, don't take the "seriousness" personal! Just want you to improve ;)

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

I have 6 years of debate experience + I'm familiar with pf, bp, ap and worlds.

1) no preference for wpm as long as you enunciate clearly

2) I don't flow crossfires

My background: I am an experienced PF debater who has competed in several regional/national/global tournaments

I started to judge in regional tournaments in the year of 2023, primarily in PF debates.

-Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

-Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.

-I don't flow crossfire, so if you think it is important, bring it up in your speech, or else it's an auto-drop

-To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.

-I like a spicy debate with clashes so try your best to create clashes

-Weigh your impact in summary/final focus!!! If you don't bring up your impacts then I won't take in my flow

-I'm an evidence person so make sure to be prepared with evidence to back up every claim you make

-Be civilized during the debate and have fun :)

Hi, fellow debaters! I am the judge of this round. You can call me Evelyn. I have attached my debate CV below. I have done Public Forum, British Parliamentary, American Parliamentary, and World School Debate. I am the executive for Sophistry, the most prominent student-led debate organization in China, and the communication leader. We have hosted several international invitationals, so feel free to ask me questions about the procedure of the rounds or the topic itself.

My speaking speed preference is "conversational speed," which is 120 to 150 wpm, and "TED talk speed," which is 150 to 200 wpm. I accept fast speaking as long as you are not spreading. I won't take down anything you said if you are spreading, and I will ask you for a manuscript of your speech. Front linings are accepted. Please also time yourself during the round. Theories are accepted. You could do whatever you want to make the round fancy, but please make the flow straightforward, as it is my main judging standard.

I vote based on clash comparisons. I wish for clear clash comparisons in summary speeches and final focus. I accept aggressiveness, but keep your opponents from being cut off when they just start to answer your questions. I accept fast speaking, too, but please be clear at every point you want me to vote on. I favor summary speeches the most, so please make voting issues more straightforward. I don't vote on how many points you have. Remember to do weighing of pieces of evidence in pf rounds. Don't be racist or sexist since I don't support those in rounds. I will accept logical linkages if it flows fluently.

I equally weigh mechanisms and cards in rounds.

Below is my CV:

2021 NSDA Champion + outstanding speaker

2021 NHSDLC champion +（multiple speakers) + some finalists

2022 TOC WSDC Finalist 2022 TOC pf champion + Best speaker

2023 ASO finalist + NHSDLC National Best speaker (out of more than 100 debaters) + TOC Asia ranking 9 + MIWSDC quarterfinalist

2023 GDC open semi-finalist + pre-ABP open quarterfinalists

2023 Harvard Debate Council Fall Champion

2023 NHSDLC BP Finalists

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

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

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

ISHMAEL MANDIGO

AGE:25

COLLEGE: Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunications

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

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

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

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people.
As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

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

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

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well-argued out logical responses.

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

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

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

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

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

B. 6-10

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

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

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

A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

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

8

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

8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

10

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

9

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

8

14. How fast should students speak?

8

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

I've judged debates and speeches at various levels, including high school and college competitions. My experience spans different formats, such as Public Forum debates, as well as individual events like original oratory. In judging, I prioritize clarity, logical consistency, and effective communication, providing detailed feedback to help participants improve. My background in these areas has given me a deep understanding of argumentation, rhetoric, and the importance of presenting ideas persuasively and coherently.

1. Judge’s Name :Mutsa Mufaro
2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
a. I have never judged debate before.
b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.
a. I have never debated competitively before.
b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
c. I debated other formats for less than a year.
d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?
a. I coach debate and have researched this topic
b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped
argument
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
c. I’m not sure.
d. Other (please specify)
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my
notes.
b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.
c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
d. Other (Please Specify)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
I decide who wins the debate by looking at how well a team presents theirarguments and counters their opponents. I pay attention to the strength of theirpoints and how they respond to the other side's arguments.I enter a debate witha blank mind, setting aside my prior knowledge and personal opinions. My
judgment is solely based on the arguments and information presented by thedebaters.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
Take the time to thoroughly analyze and counter your opponents' arguments.Point out any fallacies or weaknesses in their reasoning. Additionally debatesshould be respectful and focus on the substance of arguments rather thanpersonal attacks. I believe constructive and respectful exchanges lead to a more
meaningful debate experience. Lastly fast talking is fine, but it becomes aproblem when speakers talk so fast that their points can't be heard. It's importantto find a balance between speaking quickly and being understandable, so that asa judge I can follow and understand what's being said. Speaking too fast shouldn't
make the message hard to understand.

1. Judge’s Name
Charles Junior Mupotaringa
2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
a. Ihave never judged debate before.
b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.
a. I have never debated competitively before.
b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
c. I debated other formats for less than a year.
d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?
a. I coach debate and have researched this topic
b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
c. I’m not sure.
d. Other (please specify)
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.
c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
d. Other (Please Specify)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
Clarity, evidence, logic and persuasiveness, those are the four main factors i consider when evaluating arguments from each team. I also look at the presentation style, organization and structure, speaking skills and demeanor from the debaters of each team for me to be able to make my final decision.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I appreciate clarity,professionalism,respectful behavior and debaters who adhere to the debate rules. Fairness and open mindedness are my approach to each and every argument that is presented by the debaters, hence with this i can say my judgement to each team is without bias.

Public Forum Debate and Junior Debate

As an adjudicator look for the following qualities in debates and speeches

1. Clear communication and pronunciation.
2. Well-structured arguments that are logical
3. Use of credible sources and evidence to back up arguments.
4. Effective counterarguments and rebuttals.
5. Effective questioning and responses during cross-examination.
6. Ability to persuade the audience and judges
7. Coordination and collaboration between team members.
8. Confidence, poise, and body language.
9. Timing: Adherence to time limits and effective time management.

Original Oratory

1. Original, interesting, and meaningful content.
2. Clear and logical organization of the speech.
3. Clear pronunciation and enunciation.
4. : Confident, engaging, and dynamic presentation.
5. Ability to connect emotionally with the audience.
6. Effectiveness in persuading the audience.
7. Effective use of language, including vocabulary and rhetorical devices.
8. Appropriate and effective use of gestures and body language.
9. Speech should be memorized, not read.
10. Adherence to time limits and effective pacing.

Impromptu Speech

1. Clear understanding of the given topic.
2. Clear and logical structure despite limited preparation time.
3. Clear communication and pronunciation.
4. Confidence, poise, and dynamism in delivery.
5. Original and creative approach to the topic.
6. Relevant, coherent, and substantive content.
7. Ability to engage with the audience.
8. Effectiveness in convincing the audience.
9. Appropriate use of gestures and body language.
10. Adherence to time limits and effective time management.

Tinashe Musuka
Debating Experience:
National 2nd Price, at National Schools Debate Championship
2018 3rd Regional best speaker- at Zimbabwe National University Debate Championship
Pre Quarter Finalists at 2020-at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship
National Constitutional Court Schools Debate Tournament-2019 Grand Finalists

Judging Experience:
BASIS INTERNATIONAL PARK LANE HARBOUR 20/4/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL BILLINGUAL CHENGDU 30/3/2024 Public Forum
BASIS INTERNATIONAL HANGZHOU 9/13/2023 Public Forum

Judging Preference or Judging cateria:
My preference for the outcome of the debate may vary slightly depending on the specific rules and regulations of the tournament or organization and I consider fairness, adherence to debate rules, and overall impact of the arguments presented by each team:
The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)

Clarity and Organization: I evaluate how well debaters communicate their arguments and ideas. Debaters should articulate their points clearly and concisely, using logical organization and effective signposting.

Content and Evidence: I assess the quality and relevance of the arguments presented by debaters. Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence and sources and I also consider the depth of analysis and the ability to respond to opposing arguments.

Clash and Rebuttal: I look for effective clash and rebuttal between debaters. Debaters should engage with the arguments made by their opponents, address their points, and provide counterarguments also i assess the ability to identify flaws in opposing arguments and effectively challenge them.

Use of Crossfire: I evaluate how debaters utilize crossfire, a period of direct questioning between teams. Debaters should ask strategic and relevant questions, respond effectively to their opponents’ questions, and use crossfire to clarify and strengthen their arguments.

Delivery and Style: I also consider the overall speaking style and delivery of debaters. Debaters should speak with confidence, clarity, and appropriate use of gestures and vocal variety and use of fluent English also Debaters should assess the ability to engage the audience and maintain a professional demeanor.

Summary and Final Focus: I assess the ability of debaters to summarize the main arguments and reiterate their team’s position. Debaters should effectively prioritize key points and provide a clear final focus on why their team should win the debates
Location:
Nanjing University of Post and Telecommunication, Jiangsu Province, China

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.

I have 3 years of speech and debate experience. I've done PF/CX/IMP; Started judging this year and have judged PF/CX rounds. I've led speech/debate clubs, organized debate competitions (Policy debate - NPDC lets go!) and speech organizations (ImpacTALK). Feel free to contact me if you are interested!

Add me in email chain if you are starting any: ruxin.sheng13975-biph@basischina.com

PF:

1. Signpost as much as possible
2. Be polite in cross... low speaks if you talk over your opponents or give "speeches" instead of questions/answers
3. I don't flow cross; bring important points up later if you want them considered
4. Spreading is okay, but if you are going really fast (>200 wpm), send me your speech doc
5. I am a flow judge, so I do take note of dropped arguments; that being said, flow and call out ur opps for dropping arguments
6. Give voting instructions in summary/ffs - those are important for my decision!
7. Weigh your impacts!
8. Don't give rebuttal-like summary/ffs
9. Again, claim-warrant-impact. the structure doesn't necessarily have to be perfect but you need all components complete to get me to buy the argument
10. I like theories and kritiks but don't introduce any without complete shell/extensions
11. I'm okay with all sorts of arguments as long as they are well explained; novel and interesting ones will be great!

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

3. Framework should be clear and justifiable

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

5. Weigh your clashes in summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

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

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

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

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

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

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

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

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

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

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

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.

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

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

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

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

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

Hi, my name is Teresa Suen currently a 9th grader in Basis International School Shenzhen. This is my first school year doing speech & debate and I got multiple champions and finalists in several tournaments. This is my first time judging debate and speeches, I have much more experiences in speeches than debate. I do know and pay attention to the topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it. I am going to say this for all events, everyone should be RESPECTFUL to each other.

Debate

I am going to sign my ballot for the team with the best weighed impact with a logical link chain. I will always value argument over presentation. Spreading (speaking fast) is okay for me, I understand that we need to get through all points in our contentions. However, THIS IS IMPORTANT, make sure that you speak CLEARLY. Don’t blame me if I don’t get what you are talking about.

Defense needs to be extended in final focus. Offense needs to appear in both summary and final focus. (REMEMBER WARRANTING AND IMPACTING IS IMPORTANT!) I think (personally) that the second speaker should be expected to response directly to the first rebuttal speaker (front lining) I will flow contentions, rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses. When I make my final decisions, I use my notes to aid me in making my decisions.

Speech

Original Oratory:

For OO, I am looking for a problem, cause, solution or a cause, effect solution. This is the basics of an original oratory, you really need to have this. (REMEMBER STRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT!) I value argument and presentation in the same level. For presentation, please speak clearly, please include hand gestures. Moving around in the room logically and making jokes will be great!

Chloe Qinghe Wang

I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year. I'm fine with all speeds, as long as you enunciate clearly. I’ve debated this topic multiple times, and I have researched it thoroughly. The second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive, but they may respond to the first rebuttal if time allows. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

Decision making:

The most important factor is clashes - if the clashes are clearly skewed it’s an obvious decision. The second factor is impact - the final focus is extremely important for this, I want to hear weighing instead of a miniscule rebuttal of everything your opponents said. Numbers are obviously an easy weighing mechanism but for more conceptual arguments tell me why it’s important.

P.S.

BE POLITE. Let your opponents answer your questions. Quit the 2-minute long clarifications. Don’t interrupt your opponents while they’re answering.It’s obnoxious and annoying.

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

Hi. I'm Victor Wang

Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

Tell us about your debating experience.

I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

I have debated other formats for more than a year

What is your speaking speed preference?

All the following are accepted. But please keep it reasonable and try not to spread

Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

Fast speed (200+wpm)

How much do you know about the topic?

I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

While I assess the merits of arguments being made, please do demonstrate strong command of speaking skills and effective communication to actually make sure your arguments are delivered

Make sure that you actually have strong links backed up by relevant evidence (preferably statistics)

I don’t flow during crossfire, but I will take that into consideration

Please be polite to your opponents. I will mark you down for speaker points if you frequently interrupt them

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

Have fun and good luck! I might appear to be formal/scary when I judge but generally I’m an easy-going person

Hi fellow debaters! BIPH 26', you can call me Albert :)

Been doing speech and debate for 3 years - PF champion in Seattle invitational and TOC winter invitational; 1st place in extemporaneous speaking. Led Summary debate organization (lol come to our workshops and tournaments!), hosted national tournaments, served as judge instructor for over 20 judges.

If you're sharing evidence through email chain, please add me as well:ziqian.wang15348-biph@basischina.com

--------------

PF Paradigm

--------------

Short version

1. Tech > truth. I flow, as both a debater and a judge. Remember that tech has substantive grounds.
2. Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument and Util; ROTB is "to vote for the better debater" in absence of explicit points made in round. Permissibility flows neg.
3. Speed: As a debater I spread (sometimes), and I often meet opps who speak fast. Spread as fast as you want, but I'll ask for transcript if you decide to spread (i.e. >200 wpm).
4. Substance: As a debater I frontline in second rebuttal, but I won't ask the same from you because I know it can get hard. Extend in summary and final focus; clash and weighing wins the ballot. Leave nothing for judge intervention - turns are not sufficient by themselves, concession is better if you are clearly losing.
5. Theory: Open to theories - remember to give the proper shells and extension.
6. K: Open to K - remember to use the proper structure.
7. Tricks: As both a debater and a judge, I love tricks (they are fun). That said, substantive grounds must be highly convincing to impact the ballot.
8. Check out Robert Chen K (jk)

------------

Long version

Tech > Truth

As a debater myself, I value tech > truth, because tech exists for a reason - you need them for such substantive values as fairness. I love teams that warrant tech arguments with substantive links. But if sth's common sense, I'll buy your point (e.g. substantively, we all understand that no new evidence can be read in final focus, because the other team has little to no opportunity to respond; I would have absolutely no problem with you simply saying "they read [whatever the piece of new evidence] in final focus so don't flow."

In debate, everything can be brought to the table, so long as they are warranted. Nothing is absolute in debate - even my paradigm. Feel 100% free to do things differently than what I prefer, you'll be just as fine if you warrant it.

Defaults, and how to convince me otherwise

- Drop the Arg: I default to drop the arg so make sure you plan your rebuttal and collapsing strategies well.

- Framework: I default to consequentialist utilitarianism unless other frameworks are brought to the table. A bit on frameworks: Well warranted extinction first is good, and here's how you win with it: establish that you reduce (even by a small margin) the probability of consequences so dire that I would be wrong not to vote you (i.e. the magnitude is so large that even if the probability is small, the product of magnitude times probability is still large). I also love metaweighing - e.g. arguing magnitude > possibility when running extinction framing. For frameworks based on deontology, make sure to warrant it. Framework debate is important in that it shapes the priority of different arguments, impacts, and weighing mechanisms (e.g. if your opp concedes that "restoring a competitive economy" should be the framework, then GDP growth would be prioritized over animal extinctions as terminal impacts). If your terminal impacts are all over the places, you don't necessarily need a framework (e.g. if your terminal impacts are saving lives for C1, economic growth for C2, and sea level rise for C3, it doesn't make sense to have a FW of "saving human lives" since it effectively undermines your C2 and C3). Also, simply because your opp had not offered a FW doesn't mean I should buy your FW - if you don't warrant it well, my default is util.

- ROTB: I default to a "vote for the better debater" ROTB but can be convinced otherwise.

- Offense: If there is no offense made in the round, any presumption warrant will win the ballot - minimize judge intervention.

Speed/delivery

Spreading is not about the number of words said per minute, but number of ideas communicated per minute. Instead of speeding up the pace of speaking, capitalizing on word economy will help you make more and stronger points.

That being said, you're free to speak as fast as you want. Tell me pre-round if you're planning on spreading, and send me (through my email) your speeches so I can make sure that I won't miss anything.

Regardless of overall speed, I love changes and shifts in tone, volume, and pace to emphasize points. I do mock trial, speech, and model UN, and have experimented blending their styles with PF - more rhetoric, more stylistic. Public forum is named as it is for a reason - you are speaking to the public, speaking to convince and to persuade; so, speak with style - at least don't be monotonic all the time.

Substance

- Rebuttal: I debate as a second speaker, and I love turns - turns are smart. But I really love comparing links/warrants after offering a turn - as second speaker I found that turns per se are not defense, since they merely offer an alternative link to an opposite terminal impact. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you warrant how your alternative (i.e. your turn) should be preferred over the link of your opp. I frontline in second rebuttal, and my partner (sometimes) frontline in first summary. I won't ask you for either, but doing so would be great - they are set as the standard in PF for a reason.

- Summary and final focus: I love summary and final focus speeches that extend on contentions onto which teams are collapsing. And I really love teams that extend with clash and weighing in mind - that wins the ballot. Teams should leave nothing for judge intervention - to keep the debate fair.

- Crossfire: As a debater I learned that most judges don't flow crossfires, and there's a reason to it - crossfire is not time for structured argumentation, but for engagement and interactions. I love securing concessions and compromise agreements during crossfire. What I love more is when teams extend on/implicate them in their following speeches. Stay nice, respectful, professional, and efficient.

Theories

I love good theory rounds. And by good, I mean rounds in which the theory is extended in every speech and is backed by substantive arguments.

K

K's are interesting, but not the best if it's too complicated. A proper K has a link, impact, an alt, and a Role of the Ballot. It's fine if your alt and ROTB go without signpost (e.g. take Cap K. If your alt is a communist world revolution, and ROTB is supporting that alt, you'd be fine framing them as the same thing.) K works together with framework. By the way, I absolutely love Robert Chen K (RC himself probably won't cast the ballot for that though!)

Tricks

Yes, tricks are fun. Depending on your style, trick can build a persuasive persona for you. But in terms of the ballot, tricks won't win you the round simply by being un-responded to - they have to be substantively convincing. Also, neg tricks that criticize the resolution are generally less convincing, and would make you seem too fanatically radical.

1. I am looking for empirical evidence and solid reasoning, will not buy pathos arguments.
2. Links should be logical, clear, and well-supported.
3. I am generally fine with fast speaking but I will stop flowing as soon as you start to spread.
4. I prefer justifiable frameworks that open up the house for discussions.
5. Do not mention new points in the summary or final focus.
6. Will deduct speaker points for extended rebuttal or extended summary.
7. Communicate with your partner, speakers should not contradict each other during the debate.
8. Please remain polite and respectful to your judge and opponents.
9. I have competed in this season, so please do not risk to include any invalid evidence or statements, I will call for a card if any claims seem inauthentic.
10. Refrain from interrupting your opposition during cross.

(Note: please be familiar with the PF structure before the tournament and use up all your time)

As a judge for this junior debate, I believe in creating a fair, educational, and supportive environment for all participants. Here are some key points that outline my judge philosophy. I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented within the round. I will remain unbiased and base my decisions solely on the quality of the arguments and how effectively they are presented. What's more, I value clear and organized arguments. I encourage debaters to structure their speeches logically, present their points clearly, and provide strong examples and evidence to support their claims. I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and courtesy. Debaters should engage in constructive dialogue and focus on the arguments presented rather than personal attacks What else, I will also actively listen to all speakers and consider each argument carefully. It's important for debaters to speak clearly and make sure their key points are effectively communicated The most important part is that I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills and analyze the topic from various perspectives. I encourage debaters to think creatively and consider the broader implications of their argument s.I value debaters who can adapt their arguments based on their opponents' rebuttals and effectively respond to counterarguments. Flexibility and the ability to think on your feet are important skills in debate.

After the round, I will provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills. I believe that feedback is essential for growth and learning, and I encourage debaters to use this feedback to enhance their debating abilities. Ultimately, debate is a learning experience. I encourage all participants to approach each round with a growth mindset, seeking to learn from each other and improve their skills with every debate.

YARROW MARTHA ANAAM-LIE
Age: 23
Location: JINZHOU LIAONING PROVINCE
College: JINZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): STUDENT Tabroom email: marthayarrow@gmail.com
1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career? Answer : PUBLIC FORUM DEBATES
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
Answer: It can be an effective strategy for delivering a lot of information or arguments in a short period, potentially putting pressure on opponents to respond quickly. However, it can also be challenging for the audience to follow and can come across as aggressive or overly assertive if not balanced with clarity and coherence. Overall, fast-talking can be a useful tactic in debate when used strategically, but it should be tempered with clarity and respect for the audience and opponents.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness? Answer :Aggressiveness in debate can be perceived positively as a sign of confidence and passion, but it can also be seen negatively if it comes across as intimidating or disrespectful. Cultural norms and context play a role in how aggressiveness is perceived, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a respectful and balanced approach.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Answer :In a debate, judges or audience members decide the winner by considering factors like how clear and logical the arguments are, the strength of evidence provided, the effectiveness of rebuttals, how convincing the debater's points are, the organization of the presentation, the delivery style, and whether the debater followed the rules of the debate.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate. Answer :
 Be mindful of your audience's preferences and adjust your arguments
accordingly.
 Welcome constructive criticism to refine your skills.
 Remain adaptable and responsive to changes during the debate.
 Showcase distinctive viewpoints or evidence that set your argument apart.
 Engage in crossfire constructively, avoiding excessive confrontation.
 Adhere to time constraints and manage your speaking time effectively.
 Emphasize the practical implications of your arguments.
 Maintain a confident and optimistic demeanor throughout.
 Familiarize yourself with any unique debate formats or preferences.

 Prioritize self-care to ensure optimal performance.
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 take few notes 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?
Answer : 8
10. How important is framework to your decision making?
Answer: 7
11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
Answer : 7
12. How important is weighing in your decision making?
Answer : 9
13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Answer : 7
14. How fast should students speak?
Answers : The optimal speaking pace varies depending on the debate format and audience, but typically, a moderate speed that prioritizes clarity and understanding is recommended

Hi! I am Cherie, a high schooler who did both PF and also speaking events (such as OO and IMP).

I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged PF before, and I have debated PF for more than a year.

As I had debated this topic before, I have most of the knowledge on this resolved.

I am a high school debater with two years of experience. I will be flowing the round (all speeches but not cross). I do value my flows a lot to help me decide because of the many arguments that are going to have to be considered. The most important factors that I will consider when determining my decisions is weighing of impacts that needs to be extended in summary and final focus. Defense also needs to be extended in summary.

For case, I am fine with fast speaking as long as the points are clear and correctly expressed. I can accept speeds to around 200+ (as long as not spreading too much). For each argument, there needs to be evidence and a warrant, meaning the warrant has to be clearly explained, and the argument shouldn’t only be supported by evidence, or else I wouldn’t consider it in my ballot.

For cross, I prefer civil discourse so there should not be any side cutting each other off and trying to dominate the cross through speaking continuously.

For rebuttal and summary remember to signpost in order to tell me where I should be putting down the response on the flow.

For the second rebuttal, I had believe it is best to respond to first rebuttal, but I would accept the frontlines in summaries, so if it is not responded to in the second rebuttal, I won't consider it as dropped.

For final focus mainly do weighing and there shouldn’t be an introduction new arguments nor new evidence, or else I wouldn’t consider it in my final decision.

All events should be kept respectful and professional.

In public forum, what i value the most is respect and constant engagement. Arguments should be clearly explained and proven with true evidence and mechanism and impacts are crucial during the decision process of the round.

Please keep crossfires simple adn respectful. It is a time for the two sides to better understand each others’ cases, not a time to further create rebuttals or elaborate arguments. Speakers should not interrupt or speak over one another, if that happens I will simply stop flowing.

It’s important for competitions to stress on their main arguments in summaries, and please do the impact weighing and argument- linking during summaries. I will nto do it for you. If neither side does comparisons on conflicting arguments, I will see it as a wash. So, in order to win opposing arguments, please weigh and compare yourselves.

Final focus should focus on a few main arguments, it is not to tell your entire case for me again. Please still do weighing and comparisons and provide me with very solid reasonings for why you win. I will nto make decisions for you, I will only absorb what you say.

For speeches, engagement with audience and ability to deliver your speech are essential. Show to me that you are extremely aware of your topics and know what you are doing through the interaction with your audience and back everything you say with logical explanations.

Hihi, I'm a new PF debater judge :D Below are some things you can do to gain my vote during a round: 1. Use lots of evidence, and don't fake them. Don't use too much either, or else I may not be able to catch them all. I want to see that every one of your reasonings and links are clearly supported with existing data or plans presented on official websites. 2. Clear links and logic. If I cannot understand the link between your contentions, your framework, and your overall logic chain, I won't take the argument into consideration. Give me clear reasons outlining why those arguments/contentions are linked, and why those arguments should go to your side and not theirs. 3. Be respectful to your opponent in the round; when doing your rebuttal, summary, or final focus, and ESPECIALLY during crossfire, don't say personally offensive things and let them finish their sentence before you cut them off. 4. Please don't do extended rebuttals in summary. Weigh your clashes and compare the impacts on both sides directly so I can see the exact reasons why I should be voting for you. As a first speaker, I pay more attention to summary than final focus (yes however I still do listen and pay attention to final focus), so first speakers please make the decision reasonings clear for me. Overall, I'm quite reasonable and if you have any questions please feel free to ask me about it bfore/after a round. Also, please, no matter what, do NOT go into political insults and racism/sexism statements because you will lose miserably with your speaker points at the lowest point I am allowed to give you. The results will stand that you lose even if you only said one accidental insult/offensive statement, no matter how good your arguments were or how crap your opponents are. In other words, be mature and sensible people. Thank you. -Michelle Zhu

Updated on May 29 for TOC Shenzhen:

1. Name: Miaomiao
2. Judging experience: e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Experience in debate: d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
4. What is your speaking speed preference? d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic? e. I have very little background knowledge about the topic. Please make sure I understand any topic-specific ideas or language you use.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)? b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive.
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.
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?: Technicality.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

If I look mad, I am not. I'm just thinking about your arguments. My facial expressions are only important when I look confused, which means you should elaborate on your point.

This is my old PF paradigm if you are still reading:

Stylistic Preference:

- For any argument or evidence you want me to evaluate, extend it in BOTH summary and final focus

- Summary is the LAST speech in which you can provide new evidence

- If you run a spread case, explain it well in crossfires and later speeches

- Case-disclosure: mutual or not at all

- Kritik: don't run it unless you know what you are talking about

- Do NOT run plans or counterplans in PF

- Frontlining during the second rebuttal is NOT mandatory

Speed:

- Please DO NOT sacrifice clarity for speed; it will be sad if I don't catch what you said :(

- Less than 200 words per minute would be nice for a constructive speech

- I would really appreciategradually speeding up because I can adapt to your voice andenunciation better this way

Evidence-checking:

- Provide a valid link and the specific quote you used

- Address it in the next speech after checking

- Try NOT to check more than 5 pieces at a time (of course, you get to check more than once)

Crossfire:

- I'm ok with being aggressive, but the condition is to be productive (see my facial expression for reference)

- I DO NOT flow crossfire: anything that isn't covered in the upcoming speech doesn't go on the flow

Things that would INCREASE your speaker points (in order of importance):

- EXPLAINING WARRANTS

- Providing well-cut cards

- Straight turns (non-unique, no link, link turn)

- Strategically collapsing

- Executing a weird argument well

- Incorporating theory-resembling arguments

Things that might REDUCE your speaker points(in order of importance):

- Strawpersoning (in particular, saying that your opponents have no evidence when they do)

- Calling for loads of cards but not addressing - ask for case disclosure in advance if you want cards so badly

- Accusing your opponent of not frontlining in the second rebuttal after reading what I wrote in the last bullet point under "Stylistic Preference" (kind-smile.jpg)

- Having off-time roadmaps longer than 10 seconds

- Exceeding a 5-second grant for each speech/cf

CX Paradigm

MSU ’26
Debated pf for 2 years during high school (China & US circuits), 2nd year doing policy debate (2a)
Please add me to the chain: zmmdb8@gmail.com
Pronouns: she/her/hers

- Zero tolerance for anything ethically or morally horrible (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, death good, any form of discrimination or harmful rhetoric, etc. directly lost you the debate)
- As an ESL I appreciate clarity over speed, go slightly slower on analytics please
- Extra speaks for pronouncing last names of Chinese authors correctly