BRIAN BWANYA

AGE: 24

COLLEGE: NANJING UNIVERSITY

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

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

I have been honored to represent my school as a first speaker back in high school at both provincial and national level during the 2019 season and participated in numerous high school debates in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I prefer moderate and composed talking. Fast talking can result in poor word articulation and the judge(s) might miss a curial argument. I do not encourage debaters to use speed rather use substance to overwhelm your opponents. Quality over Quantity.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

It's important to present your arguments with conviction and passion but always maintain a respectful and professional approach. Keep in mind that, the main aim is to persuade others with logic and mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

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

Well l take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with concise logic and in-depth analysis, persuasiveness and clear arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.

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

It's important for me to see clear arguments presented by both sides backed with recent and relevant evidence. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or insults even derogatory language. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

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

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

I respect time management so l accept fast talking as long as the speaker is audible.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

It’s not necessary for a win …. Everything should be done in moderation showing respect for every debater.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
l consider all the facts given then compare the facts to the evidence provided .

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Debates should flow smoothly with the highest level of professionalism

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.

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.

Name: Neil Yao

College: Master’s Degree at Duke University, Fuqua School of Business. Bachelor’s Degree at Peking University, National School of Development (NSD)

Current Occupancy: Professional Debate Coach, Experienced College Application Counselor

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

My speech and debate career has been 10 years. I have participated in all kinds of debate competitions including NSDA PF debate, Singapore College BP debate (impromptu), WSC debate, Shenzhen EDS Debate Competition, etc.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

I do not recommend speaking more than 180 words per minute since such speed would compromise your clarity of speaking. After all, you don’t want me to miss some of your important arguments or rebuttals.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I accept being aggressive, but being aggressive does not mean being impolite. If I feel that one speaker is intimidating or threatening the other, I would pause to warn the speaker and consider punishment of his/her speaker point.

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

Determine the winner of the debate: I will narrow the whole round of debate in three clash points (sometimes fewer or more, depending on the situation), and I will also look at arguments that are not responded to. I will only consider your analysis, evidence, and impact. I will look at analysis and evidence first to determine which team has done obviously better to win the clash point, but when both teams have relatively equivalent analysis and evidence, I will consider whose impact is stronger. After determining the clash points and unresponded arguments that each team win, I will finally weigh the winning points from both sides, considering not only which team wins more points, but also the relative importance of the points from the each team.

Determine the speaker point: your preparedness, structure, politeness&manner, English speaking ability, accuracy of language.

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

A) I do not accept any new arguments from the Summary Speaker, and of course Final Focus Speaker. I believe that allowing new arguments from Summary Speakers will give Team B an unfairly big advantage. Hence, both teams are only allowed to give rebuttals at Summary, but no new argument is allowed.

B) During the crossfire, I do not accept interrupting your opponents when they’ve just started answering or asking a question within 10 seconds. Although I do believe interrupting is allowed during crossfire, I will give both teams 10 seconds of protection time when they are speaking, so as to prevent one team from speaking disproportionately more than the other.

Name: JUDGE PIUS

I am Pius Mwangi, an experienced debate judge with a preference for moderate-paced speakers. My background includes active participation in both junior and senior debates during high school, which has provided me with a profound understanding of debate dynamics and argumentation techniques. As a judge, I prioritize fair and impartial evaluation, assessing debates based on the strength of arguments, the quality of evidence, and effective communication. I appreciate a balance between substance and style, valuing both strong arguments and engaging delivery. Relevance to the topic is crucial in my assessments, and I emphasize clarity, logical coherence, use of evidence, and rebuttal skills. I am dedicated to providing constructive feedback to help debaters improve, and I am meticulous about timekeeping to ensure fairness. Beyond judging, I am committed to mentoring and supporting young debaters, nurturing their persuasive communication skills and passion for debate.

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

6-10 TOURNAMENTS

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

I TRY TO TAKE NOTES ON EVERYTHING

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

HIGHLIGHT THE MAJOR POINTS OF CLASH AND SHOW HOW YOUR TEAM WON THEM

ON A SCALE OF 1–10.

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

5

5. How important is framework to your decision making?

3

6. How important is cross-fire in your decision-making?

7

7. How important is weighing in your decision-making?

9

8. How important are persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?

8

9. How fast should students speak?

FAST PACED IS OKAY, BUT I PREFER MODERATE SPEAKING AS IT EASIER FOR ME TO NOTE ALL THE MAJOR POINTS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

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

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

PF and BP. Have 6 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ WSDA, and 10+ DLC tournaments. Also, I did a half-year TA experience at Speechcraft in Chengdu, mainly for PF debate and speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.

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

I would consider the following three sections:

First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).

Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).

Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.

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

I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.

I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.

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

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.