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

KASONDE CHILESHE

Age:24

Location: Hangzhou, China

College: Zhejiang Universty of Science and Technology

Current Occupancy: Student in college

Tabroom email: kaykasondechileshe@gmail.com

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

I have participated in Public Forum and British parliamentary styles of debating as a competitor for over 10 years. I have judged Public forum and WSDA debates for a little over 2 years to date.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Its good as long as one takes care to fully pronounce their words and finish sentences while maintaining to stay on track and taking care to articulate ones arguments with as much coherence as possible.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

A little of it done in a modest manner with finesse is good. One needs it to give their arguments in a manner that shows an utmost belief in ones arguments and position. Without it, one can be taken for granted and be interjected unnecessarily throughout the debate and general life settings.

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

By analyzing the overall impact from the debaters. Considering the framework one uses and their coherence to it while giving arguments whose impact is both logical and applicable to life settings that it is easy to support ones arguments. The delivery and articulation of ones arguments also factors in when deciding the winner of a debate.

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

In articulation of arguments, pick a framework and stick to it. Either go in with force and clearly and logically analyze ones arguments or go in with softness of voice yet stern to give ones arguments. Also take note that a well analyzed argument with enough points backing it will do more than multiple arguments that ain’t thoroughly developed

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

A. 0-5

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

C. I write down the points I think are important and focus more on the overall presentation.

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?

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?

5

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

7

14. How fast should students speak?

Enough to be thoroughly understood and for them to communicate with their intended audience( the Judges and the other team)

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.

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.

updated public forum paradigm

coming from policy debate, I generally tend to judge a pf debate in a similar manner: as tabula rasa as possible, based on the arguments made in the debate.

Framework, theory arguments, and/or "voters" would be evaluated first. Then the pro/con contentions and their rebuttals.

Since I come from policy debate, I generally think the summary speech should do a line by line (point by point) response to the 2nd speaker's rebuttals on the contention you're extending.

Often find that summary and final focus speeches do unnecessary impact calculus when both teams have the same impacts and the link should be the focus. Impact calculus is not ALWAYS needed in the last two speeches in the debate.

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.

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.

Clarity, evidence, critical thinking, and polite conversation are all given top priority in my paradigm as a judge of public forums, junior debates,congressional debates and public speaking.

When judging junior debate and public forum I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by reliable sources and compelling data. Additionally crucial is effective critical thinking, which demonstrates logical reasoning and knowledge of opposing viewpoints. Personal assaults are not tolerated; instead, it is anticipated that arguments from opponents be engaged in a civil and productive manner. When opponents' arguments are successfully refuted, it carries a lot of weight. I take into account reasoning (40%), evidence (30%), critical thinking (20%), and delivery (10%) when assessing debates. Ignoring counterarguments, providing unsupported facts, or breaking debate rules all result in penalties. The team that best satisfies these requirements and exhibits superior arguments, evidence, and refutation will be declared the winner.

When judging speech I look for clarity in the speech's introduction, body and conclusion.Eye contact, language use, body language, tone of voice, topic relevancy, and time management are all things I look for. When scoring I use the following criteria; excellent ,good ,satisfactory , and in need of improvement.

My ultimate goal is to organize a fair, fruitful, and intellectually challenging competition where players participate rigorously and with respect, developing their critical thinking and communication abilities while also gaining a greater understanding of the subject.

Framework: I place a strong emphasis on the framework, which involves deciding which issues or impacts are most important and instructing debaters on how to weigh them in the round. The main priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis, and effective use of evidence.

Speaker Points: To decide the winner, I look at speaker points based on a debater's presentation style, clarity, and overall performance. Strong communication skills contribute to a more persuasive and engaging performance. Respect for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate.

Clash and Rebuttal: I also look at the clash—direct engagement with the opponent's arguments—and effective rebuttal. Debaters are expected to respond to opposing points and demonstrate why their arguments are superior.

Relevant Evidence: The utilization of relevant evidence and examples to support arguments is vital. I assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team.

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

My approach to judging is rooted in clarity, professionalism, and a strategic evaluation of arguments. When it comes to speaking speed, I prefer an intermediate pace that allows me to follow the debate and take notes effectively. I encourage debaters to prioritize clarity over speed, ensuring their arguments are well-articulated and easy to understand. While I value passionate and assertive speaking styles, as they demonstrate confidence and conviction, I do not tolerate hostility, condescension, or personal attacks. Such behavior detracts from the constructive exchange of ideas and will negatively affect a team’s evaluation.

In determining the winner of a debate, I focus on the strength of claims, warrants, impacts, and evidence. Rebuttals are especially important to me, as I consider how effectively a team addresses and counters the majority of their opponent’s points. Impacts are carefully weighed after the summary speeches, which I view as a critical opportunity for debaters to highlight key clashes and demonstrate their superiority on those issues.

I highly value clarity and organization in debate. I expect debaters to structure their speeches with clear signposting and smooth transitions, making it easy to follow the flow of arguments. I prioritize quality over quantity, favoring well-reasoned and supported arguments over a long list of underdeveloped points. Evidence is essential, but it is not enough to simply cite facts; I expect debaters to analyze their evidence and explain its relevance and impact within the debate.

Crossfire holds significant importance in my decision-making process. I value strategic questioning that demonstrates listening skills and uses the opponent’s answers to strengthen one’s own case. However, it is crucial to maintain respect and professionalism during crossfire. Aggressive or confrontational behavior is counterproductive and can harm a team’s evaluation.

Professionalism is a cornerstone of my judging philosophy. I appreciate debaters who remain composed and respectful, even under pressure. Personal attacks or unprofessional conduct are unacceptable and will result in penalties. In summary speeches, I expect debaters to emphasize major clashes, provide clear comparisons of impacts, and show how their team prevailed. A well-executed summary allows me to make a fair and informed decision.

My scoring priorities reflect what I value most in debate. I assign high importance to defining the topic (8/10), crossfire (9/10), framework (7/10), weighing impacts (7/10), and persuasive speaking along with non-verbal communication (7/10). I aim to take detailed notes on the most important points rather than everything, focusing heavily on the overall quality and presentation of the debate.

Finally, my advice to debaters is to remain calm, clear, and confident under pressure. I respect those who can effectively convey their ideas while maintaining professionalism and composure. By following these guidelines, debaters can ensure a strong performance in front of me as a judge.

In a debate judging, 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 appreciate debaters who engage with the opposing arguments and maintain a professional demeanor. Ultimately, I aim to assess the strength of arguments, depth of analysis, and overall debate strategy to determine the

What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?. Public forum, JWSD, original oratory extemporaneous, impromptu, informative speech.I have worked with several debating organizations such as NHSDLC, SIDC, TOC, BASIS, for the past 2 years

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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)

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

Well detailed claim, link and impact of each contention raised. The points should be supported by good evidence, high quality of rebuttal.

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

I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. 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

Name: Tatenda Musekiwa

Age:22

Location: MA’ANSHAN

College: ANHUI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

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

Tabroom email: ​​tatendamusekiwa073@gmail.com

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

-PF DEBATE, WSD DEBATE AND PUBLIC SPEAKING

- Less than a year

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

-I consider fast-talking effective if it’s clear and persuasive, but not if it is at the expense of clarity or comprehension.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

-Aggressiveness can be seen as a sign of passion, but it should not compromise respectfulness and civility.

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

-The winner is determined by the strength of arguments, evidence, and presentation,as well as their ability to address counterarguments.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate. - Please focus on respectful dialogue, clear argumentation, and effective rebuttals.

6. How many Lincoln- Douglas 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.

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 value and criterion to your decision making?

10

11. How important is cross-examination 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

8

14. How fast should students speak?

7

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

e.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a.

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c

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

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b

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

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

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

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

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.

BRANDON L.P. Judging Paradigm

Introduction
I have been a judge for more than two years, and in the last year, I have judged over eleven tournaments. My extensive background in judging has equipped me with the skills necessary to provide thorough and fair evaluations, ensuring a positive experience for all participants.

Judging Philosophy
Throughout the argument, I take careful notes because I think it's essential to record all significant points. I thoroughly examine and document every significant argument since these specifics help me make an overall evaluation of the round.

Summary Speech Expectations
The main purpose of the summary speech is to draw attention to the main issues of contention and show how your team has won the argument. Instead of presenting fresh ideas, I like to reflect on the entire debate in summary speeches. This means focusing on resolving any unresolved issues and combining arguments.

Topic Definition
I rate the importance of topic definition a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. I understand that a clear and relevant definition can improve the discussion, even though I would rather stick to the accepted term. Arguments about technicalities are not given priority by me until they significantly advance the subject at hand.

Framework Importance
I give a framework's significance in my decision-making a seven. In order to guide the discussion and guarantee that arguments are consistently evaluated, a clear framework is necessary. I concentrate on how well your framework supports your claims and if I can follow your reasoning back to the source of your decisions.

Crossfire Evaluation
I give Crossfire a seven for significance. This section is mostly used by me to verify your claims and determine the strength of your arguments. It is also helpful for figuring out which arguments are more convincing, particularly when they conflict. When assessing your capacity to defend your positions against criticism, Crossfire can be extremely beneficial.

Weighing Arguments
I give the importance of weighing arguments an eight. I need to see that you can show why your arguments are more important by comparing and contrasting your views with those of your opponent. Making a strong case requires the capacity to effectively weigh arguments.

Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication
I rate persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication a five out of ten. I will not penalize debaters who do not succeed in properly selling their points, even though I do encourage them to do so. On the other hand, a powerful delivery might make your points seem more compelling.

Speaking Speed
My preferred speaking speed is a 7, which is just a little bit above average. Fast delivery is OK with me, but it is crucial that you clearly state your points. You are probably talking too quickly if you are having trouble breathing. Clarity and lyricism in speech are essential.

Final Thoughts

I will keep improving this judge paradigm as I get more experience because it is adaptable writing. I will do everything to make this a fruitful experience for all participants, and I am excited to see the creativity and dedication that each debater brings to the table.

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

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

Expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

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

Expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

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

Expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2025 BINJ Tournament Offline Public Forum

2025 SSSDC Shanghai Offline 1v1 , PF and JWSD

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

Judge philosophies

1. judge’s name: Moirah Sithole

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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 also look 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: l consider 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 also evaluate 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.

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

Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .