Debate Experience

I began my competitive debate journey in college, specializing in British Parliamentary (BP) format. During this time, I competed at the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC) and various prestigious tournaments across Asia, which gave me extensive exposure to diverse debating styles and international competition standards.

Since 2020, I have transitioned into coaching, primarily focusing on Public Forum Debate while maintaining proficiency in judging BP and World Schools formats. This multifaceted experience allows me to understand and evaluate different debate styles effectively.

Public Forum

Speed and Clarity
I can handle fast speaking, but it must remain clear and understandable. While speed is a tool for efficiency, substance is paramount. Overly rushed delivery that sacrifices clarity will hurt your chances of winning. Prioritize clear, impactful communication.

Argument Quality and Evidence
I place a strong emphasis on the quality of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Be sure your points are not only well-reasoned but also backed up by credible, reliable sources. The depth of your argumentation and your ability to link evidence to your claims will be crucial in my evaluation.

Engagement and Strategy
I value a balanced, engaging debate. This means actively listening to and engaging with your opponent’s arguments rather than simply reading off prepared materials. A well-rounded debater who responds thoughtfully to challenges, adapts, and deepens the discussion will stand out. Understand the material you present and make the debate feel like a genuine exchange of ideas.

Paper Flowing
I take a holistic view of the debate, keeping track of all points made throughout the round. I evaluate the debate based on its overall flow and the substance of the arguments presented, not on personal biases or assumptions. Make sure that your case is cohesive and that your rebuttals are logically consistent.

Crossfire Etiquette
I appreciate when debaters engage in Crossfire with politeness and respect. While I recognize that tensions can rise during intense rounds, maintaining composure and showing respect for your opponents is critical. Aggression will not automatically secure a win, but thoughtful, strategic questioning can make a significant impact on the round’s outcome.

Feel free to ask any questions akram2017@gmail.com

Note: This was written when I only coached/judged policy. I have since gained significant experience coaching and judging PF, World Schools, BP, LD, OO.

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

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

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

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

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

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

T

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

K

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

K Affs

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

CP

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

Other

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

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

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

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.

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.

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

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.

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)

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)

Engagement; Clearity; Comparison and characterization; Logical linkage/mechanism/impact of the argument/contention itself.

Nothing.

As a judge, my philosophy is rooted in the principles of fairness, clarity, and education. I believe that a good judge must be impartial, provide constructive feedback, and promote a culture of respectful discourse.

Fairness and Impartiality

The cornerstone of my judging philosophy is fairness. Every debater, regardless of their experience or skill level, deserves an unbiased evaluation. I strive to approach each round with an open mind, free from preconceived notions or biases. This means focusing solely on the arguments presented during the debate and not allowing personal preferences or external knowledge to influence my decision.

Clarity and Comprehension

Clear communication is essential in debate. As a judge, I place a high value on the clarity of arguments. Debaters must articulate their points in a manner that is easy to understand and follow. I appreciate when speakers signpost their arguments, providing a roadmap for their case. This not only helps me follow their line of reasoning but also demonstrates their organizational skills and attention to the audience’s needs.

Evidence and Logical Reasoning

Strong arguments are supported by credible evidence and sound logic. I look for debaters who can substantiate their claims with reliable sources and present logical, well-structured arguments. This involves not just citing evidence, but also explaining its relevance and impact on the resolution. Logical consistency and the ability to refute opposing arguments effectively are key factors in my evaluation process.

Engagement and Responsiveness

Debate is an interactive activity, and responsiveness to opponents’ arguments is crucial. I value debaters who actively engage with the points raised by their opponents, providing direct refutations and counterarguments. This shows not only their understanding of the topic but also their ability to think critically and adapt their strategy in real-time.

Constructive Feedback

Providing constructive feedback is an integral part of my role as a judge. I aim to offer specific, actionable suggestions that can help debaters improve their skills. This includes highlighting strengths as well as areas for improvement. My feedback is always delivered in a respectful and supportive manner, encouraging growth and development.

Promoting Respectful Discourse

Respect and decorum are fundamental to a productive debate environment. I expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy and professionalism, regardless of the intensity of the competition. Personal attacks, rudeness, or disruptive behavior have no place in debate rounds and will be reflected negatively in my adjudication.

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 ;)

Judge Portfolio:

2x World Champion in Public Speaking (Impromptu and online )

TED & TEDx Coach | 5x TEDx Speaker

First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies

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

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

17 years Public Speaking Experience

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

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

Students winning World Champion in Public Speaking (5 world champions), Startups, Debates etc.

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

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

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

For Debate: I look with a simple assessment: PREP - Point, Reason, Examples, Presentation Style and format. Not just that, Point, Techniques and whether I am convinced matters.

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

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

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

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

I debated for 3 years in China and won 2 NSDA China regional championships and national semi-finalist. I'm currently taking a gap year before I go to college and I have been judging PF debates for the past year. I understand basic rules and PF debate terms well, but I do expect debaters to explain it clearly when it comes to terms that are specific to the topic. Also, English is not my first language, so don't speak too fast (this doesn't mean you need to intentionally slow down, just make sure you are not speaking faster than 250 words per minute) to make it difficult for me to judge. As a judge, I fully understand the hard-works debaters did prior to the tournament, I will do my best to listen and flow in the round.

Specific suggestions to debaters:

1. Don't be rude. I like rounds that are clear and effective. I would stop flowing if two teams are just shouting at each other.

2. I care about impact calculus a lot. If no other framework is mentioned in the round, I would adopt a utilitarian framework to judge the debate.

3. I care about argumentation over presentation, pathos doesn't really work in most cases when I'm judging.

4. I do flow in the crossfires but make sure you talk about important crossfire moments in the following speeches.

5. HAVE FUN !!!!

Judge Philosophies

1.Judge’s Name: Tinashe Mbonyeya

2.Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3.Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4.What is your speaking speed preference

c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5.How much do you know about the topic?

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

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.

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?

• The winning team is the team who best proves their side of the topic some of the factor includes,

1.Resolution Understanding

- Clarity: Understanding the resolution and its implications is crucial.

- Context: Knowledge of the topic's background and current relevance.

2. Evidence and Research

- Quality of Evidence: Reliable sources and data strengthen arguments.

- Relevance: Information must directly support the case being made.

3. Argument Structure

- Logical Flow: Arguments should be coherent and well-organized.

- Impact: Emphasizing the significance of arguments on the resolution.

4. Counterarguments

- Anticipation: Identifying potential counterarguments beforehand.

- Rebuttal Preparedness: Being ready to effectively counter opposition claims.

5. Persuasiveness

- Rhetorical Techniques: Use of ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience.

- Delivery: Tone, pace, and body language can significantly affect reception.

6. Judging Criteria

- Frameworks: Understanding how judges evaluate arguments (e.g., weighing impacts).

- Prioritization: Knowing which arguments are likely to resonate more with judges.

7. Team Dynamics

- Collaboration: Effective teamwork and communication strategies.

- Role Allocation: Assigning specific roles based on strengths.

8. Audience Engagement

- Understanding the Audience: Tailoring arguments to resonate with the audience.

- Emotional Appeal: Connecting with the audience on an emotional level can enhance persuasiveness.

9. Time Management

- Pacing Arguments: Allocating time effectively to cover all points.

- Preparation for Crossfire: Anticipating questions and managing responses within time limits.

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

- During the crossfire students should be try to address all the rebuttal for this may also be used on factoring which team wins.

TINASHE MBONYEYA

Debating Experience:

Obtained all NSDA certifications and they are all linked to my tabroom account (mbonyeyatinashe911@gmail.com)

First place in 2016at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship Marondera district.

1st Price, at District Schools Debate Tournament.

2^nd Best Public Speaker at High school District competitions.

Judging Experience:

I have obtained all NSDA Certifications and l have judged 2024 TOC Asia Summer nationals offline Shenzhen and 2024 NHSDLC Zhengzhou PS and PF offline .I know I have a strong sense of fairness and objectivity. My ability to analyze situations critically, communicate effectively, and make well-reasoned decisions sets me apart. I am committed to upholding justice, treating all parties with respect and impartiality.

Judging Preference or Judging criteria:

As a debate judge, I evaluate the clarity and relevance of foundational premise. This is an essential starting point as it lays out the groundwork for the entire debate and build a strong persuasive argument.

Following that, I will examine the logic of the arguments and the coherence of the criterion. It is important that the criterion aligns with the value premise and establish a clear framework for assessment. If a criterion is well defined the argument is more convincing.

I also analyze the contentions and evidence put forth, looking for effective support, logical reasoning, and compelling argumentation. The evidence must be relevant, credible and effectively to reinforce the debater’s position.

I also assess the depth (i.e) (how thoughtful) and responsiveness of the counter-argument .A robust counter-argument should reflect an understanding of the opposing viewpoint, while a successful rebuttal effectively challenges and refutes those arguments.

Finally, I consider the overall structure, lucidity and persuasiveness of the debate. A well-organized debate that is clear and free from confusion is essential for delivering a compelling argument. The debater who presents the more convincing case by demonstrating a solid comprehension of the value and criterion, effectively addressing opposing arguments and showcasing strong persuasiveness skills, will emerge as the victor in the debate.

Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ PersonalVoovMeeting Code:

#èÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ…¾è®¯ä¼Âš议:451-866-1235

Tabroom Email address: mbonyeyatinashe911@gmail.com

Location: Zaozhuang University Shandong Province Zaozhuang CityShizhong District Qiushi Rd

Approach: As a judge, I prioritize evaluating arguments based on their logical strength, evidence, and persuasive impact. I carefully listen to each speaker, assessing their content, delivery, and organization.

Adjudication Criteria: I assess arguments based on their clarity, coherence, and relevance to the topic. I value well-researched positions supported by credible evidence. Effective delivery, including vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact, also influences my evaluation.

Feedback: I provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. I focus on providing specific suggestions to help speakers enhance their argumentation, delivery, and overall performance.

Adaptability: I adapt my judging style to different events and formats, recognizing the unique requirements and expectations of each category.

Impartiality: I approach each round with an unbiased mindset, ensuring a fair assessment of all participants regardless of their background or affiliation

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.

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.

My paradigm is rooted in creating an educational and fair environment that promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and respectful discourse. I believe that the purpose of competitive debate extends beyond winning or losing; it serves as a platform for intellectual growth and the development of essential life skills.

In evaluating debates, my primary standard for decision-making is the clarity and strength of argumentation. I place significant emphasis on well-reasoned, evidence-supported arguments that contribute to a coherent and logical case. Effective communication skills, including clarity of speech, organization, and the ability to articulate complex ideas, are paramount.

I also value strategic thinking and adaptability in debaters. The ability to respond to opponents' arguments with agility, while maintaining a consistent and coherent case, demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic. Flexibility and strategic use of cross-examination and rebuttal time can be powerful tools when employed thoughtfully.

In addition to substance, I prioritize fairness and respectful engagement. Debaters should demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethical considerations in argumentation. Respectful cross-examination, adherence to time limits, and a genuine willingness to engage with opposing perspectives contribute positively to the overall quality of the debate.

As part of my decision-making process, I consider the quality and relevance of evidence presented. Debaters should use credible sources to support their claims, and the evidence should be contextualized effectively within the broader argument.

While style is not the primary focus of my judging paradigm, effective delivery and presentation can enhance the overall impact of a debater's case. However, style should complement substance rather than overshadow it.

In providing feedback, I aim to offer constructive criticism that guides students toward improvement. I highlight strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing areas for growth and providing specific suggestions for enhancement.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to contribute to the educational experience of the participants by fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating atmosphere, promoting fair and thoughtful decision-making, and encouraging the development of critical thinking and communication skills.

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.

Judge’s Name: ANGEL YAKOBE

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?
Well I take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with logic and in depth analysis, persuasiveness and clarity arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
It’s important for me to see clear and concise arguments presented by both sides. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language. Not only that, use tangible evidence to support your claims and it should be recent, relevant and accurate. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

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

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.

Debate Experience:

I've been competing in pf, ap, wsdc, and bp for several years and I'm familiar with judging a round of all formats.

I don't care about many restrictions in rounds unless it gets too extreme (ie personal insult). I appreciated points as long as it is 1. well-developed 2. not dropped. Frontlines and roadmaps are all accepted. Don't drop points.

Additional Notes:

I flow most things including crossfire but only if ur emphasis on either cards or linkages is directed to me.
Respect PF structure. Don’t introduce new cards in 2nd summary or FF—they likely won’t fly.
I prefer conversational speed but your speed won't influence my decision unless it gets really vague.
Have fun

My idea of a good speech:

Organization

1. Clear structures
2. Effective transitions
3. Natural development of speech

Analysis

1. Direct address to the prompt
2. Justifications for ideas
3. Establish significance to the points
4. Examples should be explained and linked to ideas

Delivery

1. Confidence
2. Effective voice movement and expression
3. Appropriate volume
4. Eye contact

What I look for in a debate

Arguments

1. Clear and relevant
2. Organized and easy to follow
3. Strong credible evidence

• Current events
• Historical data
• Cite reliable source

Rebuttal

1. Rebut each point
2. Tackle logical fallacies if you can
3. Explain Why your own position is more preferable

Time allocation

1. Spend enough time on important points

Teamwork

1. Unified development
2. Complementary arguments

Style and rhetoric (least important)

1. Fluent and compelling
2. Appropriate pace (I won’t write anything down if I can’t hear)