I have been a debate judge for seven years now and I enjoy it big time. I love a genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences.

Quality, well-explained arguments should take precedence over quantity. Debaters should employ quoted evidence to back up their statements, and relevant evidence should be used to supplement rather than replace arguments. A crucial consideration is clear communication.

The quantity of arguments is less significant than the quality of arguments, just as evidence quantity is less important than evidence quality. As a result, your arguments should have three crucial components: claim, evidence, and warrant.

In addition, I seek a robust theoretical framework that gives justification for duty-based or consequential arguments. The framework discussion should focus on who gives the highest value and criteria rather than who achieves them the best (that should be left for the contention-level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is perfectly permissible if the debate can achieve it more effectively at the contention level.

I don't mind what you run as long as it's clear and sensible. Make no assumptions about my knowledge, since if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. I also consider how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately influence my selection, but it will certainly influence your speaker points.

Good luck and enjoy debating.

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!!!!!!!!!!

DEAR DEBATERS

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for your personal and intellectual growth. My philosophy as a judge is centered on three core principles:
1. Engagement and Learning: I see debate as an opportunity for you to explore, question, and learn. I appreciate when you engage deeply with the topics and arguments, seeking a better understanding of the issues at hand. Your involvement in debate is not just about winning rounds but about the journey of discovery and self-improvement.
2. Respect and Inclusivity : Respect for your fellow debaters is paramount. In the spirit of civil discourse, I encourage you to engage in debates with respect, empathy, and an open mind.
Promote inclusivity by valuing diverse perspectives, and ensure that your arguments and responses maintain a tone of respect and professionalism.
3. Clarity and Adaptability: Effective communication is a cornerstone of debate. I encourage you to present your arguments clearly and logically. While I appreciate confidence , remember that clarity is equally important. Additionally, adaptability in responding to your opponents' arguments and changing debate dynamics is a valuable skill. Being flexible in your approach shows your ability to think on your feet.

I also want to emphasize that, as a judge, I aim to be impartial and unbiased. I will evaluate your arguments based on their merit, adherence to the debate format, and overall persuasiveness, rather than my personal beliefs.

JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI

AGE: 23 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

DEBATE ETIQUETTE

Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.

I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.

SPEAKER POINTS

When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.

Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.

I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.

BERWA KEZIAH

Age:21 years

College: Beijing Institute of Technology

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

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 3 years

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks.

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

According to the team's ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation, logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness, how well can debaters respond to their opponents' arguments and counterpoints.

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

Be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence.

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

A. 0-5

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

A.I try to note everything.

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

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

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

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

10. How important is framework to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

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

14. How fast should students speak?7

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Public Forum Debate and Junior Debate

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

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

Original Oratory

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

Impromptu Speech

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

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

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

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

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

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

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

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

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

A. 0-5

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

A. I try to take notes on everything.

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

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

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

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

10. How important is frame work to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

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

14. How fast should students speak? 7

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

Hi, I'm Favour. I was involved in debates during high school and have experience as a competitor and a judge.

My judging philosophy has no external influence but mainly relies on the the content, approach and delivery of the debater. I believe in evaluating debates based on the quality of arguments, evidence and speaker performance. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and engagement with the topic. I strive to be fair, impartial, and open-minded in my evaluation of debates.

my preferences and expectations are quite simple:
I prefer debaters to focus on quality over quantity of arguments. I appreciate well-reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. I am open to a variety of debate styles and strategies, as long as they are presented effectively and persuasively. Your ability to deliver and get your points across proficiently is highly important. A debate that is well articulated and clear is highly regarded as it allows the debater to carry the listeners along. Also, It is important to counter statements made by the oppositions in a respectful manner or it might imply some sort of agreement with opposition. Countering assertions should be done with strong points will help to win.

I provide detailed feedback to debaters on their performance, including strengths and areas for improvement. I aim to offer constructive criticism that can help debaters grow and develop their skills. I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek clarification on my feedback. I expect debaters to be respectful towards each other, the judge, and the audience. I expect debaters to be well-prepared, engage with the topic, and follow the rules of the debate format. I appreciate debaters who are willing to listen to feedback and learn from their experiences. In conclusion, I am committed to providing fair, impartial, and constructive judging in all debates.

I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.

Good luck to all!

I am a seasoned PF debate enthusiast and judge, stressing the significance of clarity and comprehension in debates, cautioning against aggressive behavior while advocating for a respectful tone. With over 5 years of experience judging university and high school tournaments, I emphasize evaluation criteria of strong arguments, evidence, persuasion skills, and engagement with opposing viewpoints to determine the debate winner. I encourage debaters to present clear, concise arguments supported by reputable evidence and to foster respectful dialogue for a meaningful exchange of ideas.

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

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

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

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

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. 6-10

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

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

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

A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

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

8

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

8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making?

10

12. How important is weighing in your decision making?

9

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

8

14. How fast should students speak?

8

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

JENA THABO LAMECK

Debating Experience:

The best 2019 Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship.

The 2nd best 2018 Parliament Debates in Harare, Zimbabwe

The best Debate Speaker in 2018, Midlands Province qualifications, in Zimbabwe

High school Debate Mentor from 2020 to 2023 at Cheziya High School in Zimbabwe.

Judging Experience:

Harbinger Online Debate Practice 2024.

NHSDLC Zhengzhou Tournament 2024

NHSDLC Wuhan Offline Tournament 2024

BIHZ Tournament 2024

NHSDLC Qingdao Offline Tournament 2024

NHSDLC Online 4 Tournament 2024

Judging Preference or Judging criteria:

In a debate judging, I will be unbiased and impartial, and should avoid any potential conflicts of interest. I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence-based claims, and logical reasoning. I value concise and impactful delivery, adherence to time limits, and respect for opponents. I will be thorough and observant, paying close attention to the details of each entry I appreciate debaters who engage with the opposing arguments and maintain a professional demeanour. Ultimately, I aim to assess the strength of arguments, depth of analysis, and overall debate strategy to determine the winner. I prefer debaters who speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem. I will be able to articulate their rationale for their decisions clearly and concisely. I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

As a judge, I adapt my paradigm to align with the specific rules and guidelines of each tournament, ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of debates.

The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)

In making my decision at the debate I will evaluate which side has presented a more compelling and well-supported case. The side that provides more robust evidence and argumentation typically has the advantage. My standard for decision (RFD) is as follows: I will assess which side has demonstrated the greater impact and relevance of their arguments. The team that better establishes the significance and implications of their points will be favored. My decision will also be influenced by the clarity of each team's arguments and how well they flowed throughout the debate. A coherent narrative and effective use of rebuttals will weigh heavily. The final decision will also consider the overall impression of the debate. This includes the effectiveness of presentation, the persuasiveness of arguments, and the debaters' ability to maintain composure and clarity throughout the round while also adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.

Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ Personal Voov Meeting Code

#腾讯会议：584-534-9283

Tabroom Email address: engineerjena830@gmail.com

Location: 安徽省马鞍山市花山区霍里街道安徽工业大学秀山校区研究生公寓7栋 Anhui University Of Technology

NGALULA JOJO

AGE:23

COLLEGE:NANJING UNIVERSITY OF POST AND TELECOMMUNICATION

CURRENT OCCUPANCY:STUDENT

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

I did debate when I was in high school went up to provincial level in 2017 and 2018.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I don’t mind fast talking but I do prefer moderate and composed talking. Talking fast can result in poor word articulation and the judges might miss crucial argument moreover I think value over volume.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

Arguments should be presented with passion but always be respectful and professional. Keep in mind that, the main aim should be to persuade others with logic and especially the mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

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

I take into consideration the entire debate before determining the team which wins. The team which has the most persuasive argument and is backed by logic.

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

It's extremely important that your arguments are presented as clear as possible with proper breakdown so that I can follow along and it needs to be backed up with relevant evidence. I do prefer debaters who are able to conduct themselves professionally by remaining calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks. Lastly, don’t go on tangents and give irrelevant arguments do your best to stick to the topic.

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.

I graduated from Public Communication in Newhouse College, Syracuse University. I participated in NHSDLC during high school and won the Champion in 2018 Guangzhou Regional. I have judged several debates tournaments before. For the debate, I would like to hear more about your logic path and complete arguements. Building a stable framework as the base of your debate is also important. Also, I prefer if you can speak clearly and fluently instead of quickly. Good luck!

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience for the past 2 years

2. Fast-talking?

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

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

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

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

Name: Marcus Muteedzi

1. What types of debates have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?
I have 6 years of experience as a debater. I have participated in Public Forum debates, World School debates, and British Parliamentary debates.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?
I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps in maximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
Aggressiveness doesn't win you the round, let's be polite to one another and stick to the important facts.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
I believe that public forum debate is all about persuasion using ethos, pathos, and/or logos. The major criteria I use to make my decision include engagement, evidence, and impact weighing. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you manage to execute these three key areas effectively. Therefore, the team with the better claim, warrant, and impact wins the round.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference for the debate.
I usually decide the winner of the debate based on all the speeches. It is important to do your best throughout the round to achieve higher points.

6. How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
C. 11+

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

A. I try to take notes on everything

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

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

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 5

10. How important is framework to your decision making? 7

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 5

14. How fast should students speak? 8

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.

Moddy Princess Sibanda

Debating Experience:
Finalists 2021 at Zimbabwe

Quarter finalist Public Speaking and Debating Championship (Online)

2nd Best Speaker Price at High school Junior Parliament

Harare girls High Debate competitions qualifiers

Judging Experience:

2024 NHSDLC WUHAN Speech & Debate Tournament

2024 BIHZ tournament online

2024 NHSDLC Qingdao offline Public speaking Tournament

2024 NHSDLC Online 4 Public Forum

2024 NHSDLC Shanghai Offline Public Forum

2024 NHSDLC Shanghai Offline JWSD

2024 BIBWH Tournament online debate

2024 NHSDLC Fall Online 5 Speech

Judging Preference or Judging criteria:

As a judge, I evaluate debates based on the quality of arguments, presentation, and strategy. My primary focus is on the clarity, logic, and persuasive power of the arguments presented. I prioritize teams that present well-structured, evidence-based arguments that effectively address the topic.

Effective presentation is also crucial, as I consider the clarity, concision, and delivery of speeches. I assess the teams' ability to communicate their arguments clearly and persuasively, taking into account factors such as body language, tone, and pace.

Strategy is another key aspect of debate that I evaluate. I consider the teams' approach to the topic, including their ability to identify key issues, counterarguments, and effective rebuttals. I assess their ability to allocate time effectively, ensuring that all points are covered and arguments are fully developed.

When evaluating rebuttals and counterarguments, I consider the teams' ability to respond to opponents' arguments, challenge assumptions, and present effective counterarguments. I also assess the credibility and relevance of sources used to support arguments.

Ultimately, my decision is based on which team presents the most persuasive case, taking into account all of the above criteria. While I strive to be impartial, I tend to favor teams that present clear, concise, and well-structured arguments, use credible sources and evidence, and demonstrate effective time management and organization.

As a judge, I adapt my paradigm to align with the specific rules and guidelines of each tournament, ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of debates.

The Standard for my Decision at the Debate; (RFD)

In making my decision at the debate, I will be evaluating teams based on their ability to present clear, logical, and persuasive arguments that effectively address the topic. My standard for decision (RFD) is as follows: I will assess whether teams have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the topic, identified key issues, and presented relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will also evaluate their ability to respond to opponents' arguments, adapt to the debate's progression, and demonstrate effective time management and strategic thinking. Ultimately, I will award the team that presents the most compelling case, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic and the ability to persuasively communicate their arguments, while also adhering to the rules and guidelines of the debate.

Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ Personal Voov Meeting Code

#腾讯会议：566-547-2914

Tabroom Email address: moddysibandap@gmail.com

Location: 江苏省南京市江宁区龙眠大道639号 中国药科大学 China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing China

I believe in providing equal opportunities for all competitors. I will judge solely based on the arguments presented in the round, not personal biases or outside information and so I expect logical and evidence-based arguments as well as strong and effective rebuttals. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. I also aim to provide constructive feedback that helps competitors grow. I expect all participants to maintain respect towards each other and towards the activity itself.

I understand that different events require different judging approaches. I will, therefore, adapt my criteria and feedback accordingly.

I encourage competitors to practice time management to make the most of their speaking opportunities. I will enforce time limits fairly to ensure a smooth and timely tournament experience for all participants.

Judge Philosophies

2.Tell us about your debate judging experience. [c]

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]

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)

My answer: Not only should the second rebuttal speaker respond to the first rebuttal but they should also use the second rebuttal to rebuild their own case. Focusing more on using the opponents points from the first rebuttal to build their own case rather than just responding to each point without a strong argument.

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

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)

My answer: Flowing is very important. I take lots of notes while also trying my best to actively listening and use that to make my decision.

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

a plethora of factors go into my decision of who wins a debate such as:

1. The level of clarity in the organization and presentation of a teams framework and contentions
2. The strength of their argument. Including supportive evidence is even better.
3. Effective rebuttal and crossfires: the speakers should pay close attention to their opponents claims and effectively uses them to build their own case and also to undermine their opponents case.
4. Overall round off each round: the speakers should strategically present their framework and contentions and defend them in each round without going off track, be able to use their opponents arguments to support their own instead and know which arguments to concede to and which to drop.
5. Non-verbal cues are also very important. Body language, gestures, and facial expressions can influence the perception of a speakers arguments, making them appear more confident and conveying their conviction. This can enhance their persuasiveness and credibility and sometimes even adds an emotional appeal.

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

I am committed to fairness and objectivity in my evaluations, focusing on the quality of an argument rather than personal bias. I also expect debaters to adhere to all tournament rules and follow time strictly. I appreciate well structured arguments that are rational, straight to the point, and easy to follow. Take your time, present and defend your arguments and speak at a medium pace so all your points are clearly heard. Finally, I define aggressiveness as speaking with conviction, asking sharp relevant questions to expose weakness and inconsistencies in opposing arguments and using strong evidence and logic to undermine opposing arguments. Please avoid speaking too loudly ridiculing others and speaking in an aggressive or intimidating manner.

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

My name's Rachael Liu, and I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year. I prefer Conversational speed (120-150wpm).

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

I also believe that the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive. My note is somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.In addition, the engagement really matters in my decision.

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.

Debate judging paradigm

Name: Ronald
Age: 26
College: NJUPT
Current Occupation: Phd

1. What types of debate have you participated in before, and how long is your debate career?
   NSDA Judge China (2019-now),
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
   Arguments should be delivered at a moderate pace, with an emphasis on communication. Clarity and structure are more important than speed.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
   Debaters should be respectful towards opponents while presenting their arguments. I prefer to see strategic, confident debating over unnecessary aggression.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

· Clear and well-developed arguments presented in constructive speeches.

· Impact weighing in rebuttals—well-explained and justified arguments win.

· Extending arguments from constructive to rebuttals effectively.

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

Ø Keep your arguments structured and well-connected throughout your speeches.

Ø Ensure to provide voters to address key issues from the constructive speech in rebuttals.

Ø Use key evidence and data where possible to strengthen arguments.

1. How many public forum debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
   11+
2. How many notes do you take during a debate?
   A. I try to take notes on everything.
   B. I write down the points I think are important.
   C. I take a few notes and focus more on the overall presentation.
3. What is the main job of the summary speech?
   A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.
   B. Highlight the major points of the clash and show how your team won them.
   C. Answer all the attacks on your contentions made by the rebuttal speech.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10:

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

10. How important is framework to your decision-making? 5

11. How important is crossfire in your decision-making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision-making? 10

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 7

14. How fast should students speak? 5 – A moderate to moderately fast pace allows for clarity and better note-taking.

I have experience judging NHDLC and NSDA tournaments in the past few months for PF, Novice, and Middle school online and offline competitions.

In my experience, I consider fast talking as not a very effective manner of conveying your argument. I want to follow your chain of arguments. Therefore, I appreciate it more when the debaters convey their arguments in a moderate-paced manner. Otherwise, I will miss out on important details.

In some cases, aggressiveness is helpful, especially in arguments where the debaters try to make their opponents understand their point of view. However, I prefer it when the debaters are professional and respectful. You can still present an effective debate when calm and firm. Employ convincing skills and evidence-based and impactful arguments. Impoliteness, insults, and personal attacks will not be entertained.

To determine the winner, I consider the overall structure of the debate. I follow the complete chain of main arguments. I then assess the strength of each argument, the quality of evidence, the logic of the reasoning, and the relevance of the points made. I look for clear impacts and explanations of why certain arguments matter more than others.

I don’t admit new arguments in the summary and final focus. Any new arguments introduced in the summary do not earn any points. Debaters should focus on strengthening their main arguments. They should explain why their arguments are more important or carry greater weight in the round. I also consider the clarity and persuasiveness of each debater's presentation. Effective refutation and addressing opposing points are also crucial for a strong case.

Every debate is different and based on my evaluation of the arguments, impacts, and overall performance, I decide on which side presented the stronger case and deserves to win the debate.

In case of any questions, I encourage debaters to seek clarification.

My approach to adjudication is rooted in fostering a dynamic and intellectually stimulating environment. I believe in the power of constructive dialogue, critical thinking, and effective communication as essential pillars of successful debating.

I prioritize fairness, objectivity, and impartiality, aiming to provide insightful feedback that not only highlights strengths but also offers constructive suggestions for improvement.

Ultimately, I view debates as an opportunity for intellectual growth, fun, and skill development.

Best of luck to all participants, and let the exchange of ideas commence!

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

TONY KIMANI

Age: 24

Current occupation: Undergraduate Student

College: Central South University, Hunan, Changsha

During my four years of high school years, I participated in various debates as a speaker, and in the 2018-2019 national debate, I participated as a judge. Some debate topics included:

1.Universal Basic Income (UBI): Should governments provide a guaranteed income to all citizens, regardless of their employment status, to alleviate poverty and promote economic stability?

2.Internet Privacy: Is it justified for governments or corporations to monitor and collect personal data?

3.Genetic Engineering and CRISPR Technology: Should humans be allowed to modify the genetic makeup of living organisms, including human embryos, to treat diseases or enhance desirable traits?

4.Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Should societies prioritize the protection of free speech, even if it means allowing hate speech?

I consider fast talking as a level of confidence and time consciousness as long as the speed doesn’t render the words said by the speaker unclear. Politeness is a key aspect of giving out speaker points as it ensures order in the debate room. I make a judgment on the winner based on the logic of the clash and how the speaker debates the claim. This, however, needs substantial up-to-date evidence and logic.

I would urge debaters to be composed and argue their points without rushing. If debaters are well prepared to debate either as a pro or con of a debate, then they will stand in a good position in making reasonable claims and in the crossfire.

In speeches, I like to see confidence and composure. It displays good understanding of the topic and shows that the speaker practiced enough before the presentation.

Judge philosophies

judge’s name: Onyeagoro Uzochukwu

Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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)?

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

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

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

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

The following are the factors that goes into to my decision as to who wins the debate:

1. Content and Argumentation: l assess the strength of each team's arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented during the debate. This includes the clarity of the arguments, the relevance of the evidence cited, and the logic of the reasoning.

2. Clash and Rebuttal: l then evaluate how well each team engages with and responds to the arguments made by the opposing team. Effective rebuttals that address the key points raised by the other side and highlight weaknesses in their arguments are important.

3. Organization and Structure: l alsolook at how well each team organizes their case, presents their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, and provides a clear roadmap for the debate.

4. Delivery and Presentation: lconsider the speaking skills of the debaters, including their clarity, confidence, and ability to effectively communicate their arguments to the audience.

5. Crossfire Performance: l sometimes also take into account how well debaters perform during the crossfire, where they engage in direct questioning and answering with the opposing team.

6. Impact and Weighing: l further assess the overall impact of each team's arguments and weigh the significance of the impacts presented. Debaters are expected to explain why their arguments are more important or have a greater impact than those of the opposing team.

7. Use of Evidence: l alsoevaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented by each team to support their arguments. Debaters who use credible and well-supported evidence are often viewed more favorably.

8. Clarity of Final Focus: The final focus speeches are crucial in summarizing the key arguments and impacts of the debate. I pay attention to how well debaters crystallize their arguments and make a compelling case for why they should win.

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

Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .

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.

Name: Zarnick Nangcas

Age: 29

Location: Bangkok, Thailand

College: Holy Cross of Davao College

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Grade school Science Teacher

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

I have judged Public Forum and Extemporaneous debates. I have been judging for 3 months now.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

In judging debates, I understand the importance of both passionate delivery and clear communication. While a fast-paced speaker can be engaging, I prioritize debaters who can effectively convey their arguments without sacrificing clarity. I value the ability to place emphasis on key points, as it can enhance persuasion by making arguments more impactful and memorable. I am also fond of debaters who incorporate historical events, as they provide valuable context and weight to the discussion. My focus will be on the strength of the arguments, the use of evidence, and the ability to address opposing viewpoints, all balanced with clear, well-organized, and persuasive delivery through emphasis.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

While a forceful style can be persuasive in debate, I distinguish between assertiveness and aggression. Effective debaters present their ideas confidently but avoid resorting to personal attacks or interrupting their opponents. I value respectful discourse that allows both sides to be heard clearly. My focus will be on the quality of arguments, not the volume or aggression with which they're delivered.

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

The key to a fair decision lies in evaluating each debater on several key aspects. First, I'll assess the strength of their contentions. Did they present a clear, well-defined position supported by relevant arguments focused on the core issue? Next comes the evidence. Did they back their claims with credible facts, statistics, and expert opinions? Effective rebuttals are crucial too. Did they directly address opposing arguments, expose weaknesses, and offer well-reasoned counterpoints? Questioning skills also matter. Did they ask insightful questions that forced their opponent to clarify or reveal weaknesses? Finally, logical reasoning is paramount. Were their arguments presented in a clear, logical sequence with well-supported conclusions? By awarding points or using a scoring rubric for these aspects, I can ensure a consistent evaluation. While the goal is to identify the most compelling case, I won't forget the overall impact. Did one debater sway the audience or maintain a more respectful demeanor? Remember, a close debate with strong arguments on both sides can be just as valuable as a clear victor.

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

I prefer debaters who can share good quantifiable evidences, confidence and composure during argument, and clear articulation.

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

A. 0-5

B. 6-10

C. 11+

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

A. I try to take notes on everything.

B. I write down the points I think are important.

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

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

A. Summarize the main arguments in the debate.

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

C. Answer all the attacks on your contentions made by the rebuttal speech.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 10

10. How important is framework to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 8

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 10

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 9

14. How fast should students speak? 8