I used to be the head coach of my high school's debating program. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks. Judge Philosophies 1.Judge’s Name: Queen Chibanda 2.Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e] a.I have never judged debate before. b.I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum. c.I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before. d.I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year. e.I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year. 3.Tell us about your debating experience.[d] a.I have never debated competitively before. b.I debated Public Forum for less than a year. c.I debated other formats for less than a year. d.I have debated Public Forum for more than a year. e.I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum. 4.What is your speaking speed preference?[c] a.Deliberate speed (100-120wpm) b.Conversational speed (120-150wpm) c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm) d.Fast speed (200+wpm) 5.How much do you know about the topic?[d] a.I coach debate and have researched this topic b.I have professional-level knowledge about this topic. c.I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine. d.I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it. e.I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things. 6.Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d] a.Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument b.No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive c.I’m not sure. d.Other (please specify) In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team. 7.How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b] a.It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes. b.It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision. c.It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically. d.Other (Please Specify) 8.What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you? I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

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.

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