Kaye Esperanza G. Elizalde

Age: 28

College: University of Southeastern Philippines

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Public Speaking Coach

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

I am an English Teacher from the Philippines since 2018 and have coached debaters as well. Since I have just recently moved in China, my first judging event was when I participated last WSDA Dec 2-3 Competition. I have judged both Middle School and High School Public Forum. I have also judged Spontaneous Debate as well as Original Oratory and Expository Speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in general may be challenging for others to follow. It can be due to conveying excitement or delivering information with a sense of urgency. However, in Debate it is quite a talent to Fast Talk during Constructive and Rebuttals speeches since it is time limited. However, when one does fast talk yet cannot articulate well the words, it removes the purpose of giving information and will just be unclear for the receiver of the message.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

I view aggressiveness as a tool to overpower the opponent. It can also be used to show confidence in what you believe and are trying to say. It is being persuasive. In a debate, both parties must present their sides with ample assertiveness to persuade the judge about their claims, warrants and impacts to win. However, being aggressive alone still cannot impose certain victory. It’s only an aid to convince the people.

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

I always take down notes especially in the Constructive. Usually, both parties are starting strong about their claims. However, I notice that during Crossfires and Rebuttals, one team dominates the other. It’s about who can answer logically and with a more reasonable rebuttal. Also, I am looking for evidence that supports their contentions. Lastly, I am very particular with the team who cannot rebut quickly. It shows doubt towards their information and unpreparedness.

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

First, I tell them that whenever you deliver a speech, raise your volume 20% higher than your normal speaking voice. A lot of debaters are almost inaudible. Next, I tell them to think before you speak. Learn to conjure questions directly that the Judge and Opponents understand. Debate is time limited, most debaters waste Crossfires due to a lot of unnecessary phrases like repeating contentions rather than directly asking their questions. Overall, I judged according to logical reasonings, their thorough preparedness and their speaking ability.

I consider myself a flow judge and will try to take notes on everything. As such, I have no bias against teams that speak fast, are aggressive, or use many arguments. As long as it is done well, I will credit any tactic except for ad hominem attacks.

I decide which team ought to win by using the best framework out of the two provided. If you do not provide and defend an explicit framework, I will default to the framework your opposing side presents. If neither side provides a framework, I default to my judgment.

Lastly, please be respectful in the round and have fun.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

Judge Portfolio:

World Impromptu Public Speaking Champion

TED & TEDx Coach | 4x TEDx Speaker

First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies

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

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

17 years Public Speaking Experience

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

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

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

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

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

General：

1. Don’t make assertions, always back your statements up with cards and warrants, with analysis the best. Whatever you say in a debate pls make sure it has evidence.
2. Evidence is important to my judgments, but logic matters more. I would prefer you debate from both logical and evidential perspectives.
3. For me each speaker will have 5 more seconds at the end of each speech to finish up if exceeded then I’ll interrupt.
4. Speak fast as long as it’s clear. Don’t mumble words and expect me to hear everything.

Crossfire:

1. You are allowed to interrupt during crossfire. But I don’t accept very rude debaters, and I'm not able to judge if everybody is talking over each other. Please don’t run crossfire into your own rebuttal speech or summary, be sure it is used efficiently.
2. Please challenge your opponent whenever you think there is a mistake in their cards. It will be very compelling to me if you can turn a card over.

Summary/Final Focus:

1. I would like an organized summary speech with clear clash points and impact weighing.
2. I don’t recommend bringing up too many new cards during the summary (and no new cards at the final focus) because it's more about showing me how you have won. Instead, you should focus more on linking back to your team’s FW, constructive, and rebuttal.

Age: 27

College: JIANGSU UNIVERSITY

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Economics and International Trade / Business Owner.

How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

- 6-10

How many notes do you take during a debate?

- I try to take notes on literally everything

What is the main job of the summary speech?

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

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?

- 3/10

How important is framework to your decision-making?

- 7/10

How important is crossfire in your decision-making?

- 5/10

How important is weighing in your decision-making?

- 8/10

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

- 4/10

How fast should students speak?

- 1-10 (feel free to speak as fast as you please)

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

-High school Debate team (2 years)

-Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2020.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2021.

-Host of Model United Nations Debate, Jiangsu University, 2022.

How do you consider fast-talking?

-It can be a great skill and strategy to deploy during the debate.

-I consider speaking at around 300 words per minute to be fast, of course words should be clearly pronounced and consistent throughout the speech.

-I type at 100 wpm, so you can be confident I will be getting down everything you say.

How do you consider aggressiveness?

-When the debater is confrontational or actively attacks the opponent’s arguments (expected)

-On the extreme side, when the debater resorts to excessive interruptions, aggression, shouting or personal attacks towards their opponents to undermine their arguments (not tolerated).

How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Here are the 3 points I use to determine the winner:

-Clarity and organization: The debater who presents their arguments in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.

-Strong arguments and evidence: The strength of the arguments presented, supported by relevant and compelling evidence.

-Rebuttal and refutation: Effectively addressing and countering opponents' arguments is crucial. The ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' positions, provide counterarguments, and refute their points with sound reasoning and evidence.

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

-Mutual respect and Politeness go a long way.

-Respect time.

Please try to focus on the effeciency of your outputs,pay attention to the following aspects.

A.Specificity.Judges cannot always fully understand your points,so try to balance your output and specificity.Making judge fully understand your strongest statements is the most important.

B.Emphasis.Judges cannot always flow or remember all you mentioned,appropriate emphasis on winning issues like key rebuttals,evidence,statistics etc. will help a lot.

C.Stress.It is easy to get lost or miss the important information if your voice is monotonous.

Please pay attention to emphasize the importance and give explicit weighings

A.Emphasis on importance.Proving something true isnt the end,instead,only telling judges the importance of the matters ,can we realize how important it is,and how urgent it is,which help to fully realize these points.

B.Weighing.Without explict weighings,especially in arguments about opportunity cost.it is easy to waver if debaters dont tell judge why A outweighs B.Please pay attention to making sure that you win in weighing.

If you speak too fast or uncivil,you will lose me,

If you have great engagement ,focus on logic and are passionate,it will help you stand out!

So,overally,I vote by

A.how many clashes you win.

B.whether you can use fewer clashes to successfully weigh other team's clashes.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking in China and had won various awards in tournaments. Graduating from high school in 2020, I began my judging career as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

K@sh

Age: 30 years

University: NCWU

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student of Phd

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

I have participated in academic debates, environmental conferences, and training and development-related debates. My debate career spans nearly three years as a professional, following the completion of my degree. I also engaged in debate activities intermittently during my educational journey.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in debates, also called "spreading," means talking really fast to say a lot in a short time. People do this to share many arguments and evidence, make good use of time, and sometimes confuse their opponents. But whether it's okay or not depends on the debate's rules and what's normal in that debate community. Speaking quickly can be good for covering a lot of ground, but it can also make things hard to understand for judges and the audience. So, debaters should speak in a way that fits the rules and what's expected in that particular debate. If it's clear and easy to follow, it's usually fine.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I consider aggressiveness as a factor in evaluating debaters. It can be effective when it conveys passion and assertiveness in presenting arguments and engaging withopponents. However, it must remain respectful and professional, avoiding personal attacks and derogatory language. Aggressiveness should be accompanied by well-reasoned arguments and effective rebuttals, and it should enhance audience engagement without causing confusion or hostility. Rule adherence is crucial, and excessive aggressiveness, such as interruptions or dominating the discussion, should be avoided to maintain a balanced and productive debate environment.

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

As a debate judge, I evaluate debaters based on a set of key criteria, including the strength of arguments, effectiveness of rebuttals, clarity and organization, use of credible evidence, respectful conduct, time management, adaptability, adherence to the debate format and awareness of resolution. The winning debater or team excels in these areas by effectively presenting their case, countering opposing arguments, following the rules, and maintaining a respectful demeanor. Clarity, credible evidence, impact full rebuttals, and adaptability are particularly valued. It's essential for debaters to tailor their approach to the specific debate's rules and expectations, as judges may have different preferences.

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

As a judge, I value well-structured and clear arguments that are supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning. I appreciate debaters who engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, focusing on the substance of the argument rather than personal attacks. Please be concise and to the point in your responses, and avoid going off-topic. It's important to address your opponent's points directly and provide counterarguments or rebuttals where necessary. Additionally, while passion is important, I encourage debaters to maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Remember that clarity, relevance, and logical coherence are key to winning the debate in my view.

6. How many Lincoln- Douglas Debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
A. 0-5



7. How many tournament have you judged in the past year?

6-10

8. How many notes d you take during a debate?

I write down the points that I think are important.

9. What is the main job of the summary?

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

10. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? (1 -10)

10

11. How important is framework to your decision making?
9

12. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
7
13. How important is weighing in your decision making?
7
14. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in decision making?
10
15. How fast should student speak?
8

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

Background: As a PF debate judge, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, clarity, and effective communication. I value depth of analysis and strategic use of evidence. I encourage debaters to engage in clash, respond to opponents' arguments, and communicate with a broad audience.

Expectations:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Support your arguments with relevant evidence, but don't forget to analyze and explain the implications. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence.

3. Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.

4. Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

5. Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.

6. Flexibility: Adapt to the flow of the round. Flexibility in strategy and argumentation is appreciated.

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an OO judge, I am looking for compelling storytelling, effective use of rhetoric, and a speaker who can captivate the audience. I appreciate creativity, passion, and a clear message.

Expectations:

1. Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.

2. Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.

3. Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.

4. Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.

5. Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.

6. Timing: Respect the time limits. Practice to ensure that your speech fits within the allocated time.

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an Impromptu judge, I value adaptability, quick thinking, and effective communication. I understand the constraints of the format and appreciate speakers who can navigate them successfully.

Expectations:

1. Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.

2. Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.

3. Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.

4. Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.

5. Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.

6. Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.

Tinaye Tsinakwadi

Tournaments judged in the past year

• more than 11 tournaments in the past year
• seasoned judge (+5 years of judging experience)

How many notes I take during the debate

• I try to take notes on everything.
• Details are essential to me, and I will analyze every major contention and write it down.

The main job of the summary speech

• Highlight major points of the clash and show how your team won.
• I prefer for summary speeches to be in retrospect of the entire debate.
• So less about raising arguments, but rather putting arguments to rest.

On a scale of 1-10, How important is defining the topic to my decision making (2)

• Unless it is an addition on top of the common definition.
• I prefer the standard definition, not arguing over technicalities.

How important is a framework to my decision making (5)

• more concerned with the consistency of your framework
• is it aligning well with your arguments
• can I trace back your decision-making to that framework etc?

How important is crossfire in my decision making (6)

• mostly using it to validate your arguments.
• use it to check whether your points hold weight.
• also to see which contention is better, should they clash.
• can be more crucial, in checking whether you can stand by your arguments, in the face of opposition.

How important is weighing in my decision making (8)

• Being able to compare and contrast is important to me.
• I need to know you can address your opponent's points and still show why yours are more important.

How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in my decision-making (2)

• It's better to sell your arguments.
• I encourage you to do it but won't penalize you if you don't.

How fast should students speak (7)

• I don't mind speed, but be eloquent and deliver your arguments well.
• If you are taking gasps of air, you are speaking too fast between speeches.
• Slightly above average would be the ideal speed for me.

I think weighing is the best way to win voting issues, and I usually vote on one to three voting issues. I prefer condensed arguments in the second half, and please, please extend arguments into summary and ff. Points dropped/new evidence should not be brought up. Comparative weighing/world comparison, etc., is very important as it really shows which argument I should evaluate more and vote on. Probability weighing is also helpful, especially for high-impact low probability arguments, e.g., nuclear war and extinction.

Arguments: I don’t mind how many you make, but make sure there is time to explain each one, e.g., warrant, claim, and impact. Logic and evidence together win me over rather than each by itself. Develop and condense your arguments in the second half, and don’t bring up dropped arguments randomly. I also like having analogies/narratives in contentions, making things easier to understand.

Time: You can time yourself. I'll be timing sometimes to ensure there aren’t overtime speeches, but I’m happy to let you finish your last sentence. I accept off-time roadmaps but don’t give an off-time speech. After that, please tell me where you are starting your speech.

Evidence: Take prep to ask for evidence. Don’t fake evidence. Please don’t take an eternity while pulling it up. Also, I value reliable sources, so don’t use anything too absurd.