As a judge, my philosophy emphasizes fairness, clarity, and logical rigor. I expect both teams to approach the round with a spirit of charity, presenting their arguments in a way that gives the opposing side the benefit of the doubt. I encourage teams to avoid assuming the worst about their opponents' case and instead engage with their arguments in a thoughtful, balanced way. Similarly, each team should present their own case with confidence, but without inflating their position to an unrealistic level i.e. always just assuming their team's best case.

I also place significant weight on clear, organized delivery. The structure of the presentation plays a crucial role in how ideas are communicated, and it helps me evaluate whether the arguments are effectively conveyed to the audience. Strong delivery is not just about speaking confidently but also ensuring the message is accessible and well-organized e.g. signpost your arguments and mechanisms.

Lastly, I prioritize logic and the quality of evidence used as well. Arguments must be rational, supported by solid reasoning and credible evidence. In evaluating both teams, I will look for consistency in their logic, the depth of their evidence, and their ability to substantiate their claims, ultimately rewarding those who present the most compelling, well-structured case with both clear delivery and logical depth.

I've been debating for 3 years, and judging for 1. I usually debate British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, and WSDC formats.

I usually do not value "big word" usage in my judging. My priority is always that arguments make sense and are proven with layered analysis.

My note-taking is based on what is the most important and impactful points in the round.

I value argument over style, however in extemporaneous speaking, style plays a bigger role in my decision.

1. Judge’s Name
Hello, my name is Rogelio Largo. During the debate, please feel free to address me as chair, panel, or panelist, depending on my role in the round.

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
I have been judging in debate for over five years, with a strong emphasis on technical aspects of debating and logic/analysis as a judge. While my experience with JD/Public Forum debates is more recent, my approach and results can reliably be based on the strength of logic and skills you have as a debater.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.
I have debated in other formats for more than half a decade. Although I am relatively new to Public Forum, I bring a predictable analytical perspective to this format.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?
I prioritize clarity and coherence. A conversational pace of 120–150 words per minute is ideal, though I can follow TED Talk-style speed (150–200 wpm) if arguments are well-structured and articulated. The sweet spot is around 160 wpm, but if unsure, slower and more deliberate delivery is always better, especially for nuanced or technical points.

5. How much do you know about the topic?
I maintain a working knowledge of the topic and engage with its broader themes, though I do not conduct in-depth research. I approach each debate with an open mind and evaluate arguments based on the strength of their logic and analysis.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
This depends on the strategic context. If the first rebuttal presents critical challenges to your case, addressing them directly is advisable. However, if focusing on substantive arguments better supports your overall narrative, I will respect that decision as long as it aligns with a clear and cohesive strategy.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
The flow is integral to my decision-making process. I meticulously track the logical progression of arguments, lines of analysis, and their impacts throughout the debate. My notes typically include argument tags, analytical breakdowns, rebuttal strategies, and impact comparisons. While I can often formulate a decision quickly after the debate, I use the flow to ensure my judgment is precise and well-founded, especially in close rounds.

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
I evaluate debates based on logical clarity, depth of analysis, and the effectiveness of comparative argumentation. A single well-developed argument with clear impacts and strong logical foundations will always outweigh multiple underdeveloped points. Debaters who can tie their analysis into a compelling narrative and demonstrate why their case outweighs the opposition’s are particularly persuasive to me.

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I approach every debate as an opportunity to learn from the ideas and strategies presented. I hope my feedback will be as valuable to you as your arguments are engaging to me. Let’s make it a round to remember!

Hello!

1. I prefer concise and coherent speeches, please try to follow the allotted minutes per speaker

2. Substantiated and structured arguments are highly appreciated. Include a premise, diagnosis, examples, and conclusion for your arguments.

3. During crossfire, have relevant and important discussions. Nuanced questions and answers would be great.

Thanks :>

1. Judge’s Name : Plando, Stephen

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 very little background knowledge about the topic. Please make sure I understand any topic-specific ideas or language you use.

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) Depends on the content of the rebuttal of the first speaker and if it would be damaging to the second speaker if they did/didnt responded to it.

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?

My criteria when evaluating who wins a debate are :

Depth of Analysis and Mechanism: If they sufficiently establish the necessary context to support their claims, along with the process and logic to get to that claim.
Engagement: If their response is sufficient enough to effectively counter opposing arguments or defend their own.
Strategy: If they skillfully leveraged specific contexts or nuances relevant to the topic to strengthen and add weight to their claims.

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

Just be persuasive and it'll work out well!

Hello! My name is Angela Ragasa. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year. I have also debated other formats for over three years, but not Public Forum.

I generally prefer speakers speak for less than 200+ wpm. Any range below that is okay with me. With regard to the topic, I pay attention to it, but I don't go out of my way to know about it.

Yes, I think that it is important for the second rebuttal speaker to directly respond to the first rebuttal speaker. However, considering it as a "dropped argument" will depend on the importance of the material being responded to. With regard to taking notes, I view them as somewhat important. They are helpful in aiding me to formulate the decision.

The first three factors I usually consider when making a decision is (1) the correctness of the case run by the debaters, (2) the effectiveness of responses launched by speakers (3) the resilience of the case against attacks from opposing teams.

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
1. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
2. Tell us about your debating experience.
1. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
3. What is your speaking speed preference?
1. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
4. How much do you know about the topic?
1. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
5. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
1. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal, I consider it a dropped argument.
6. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
1. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
7. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
1. I look at the main clashes and how well each team shows that their arguments are relevant and important to the debate
2. I also look for arguments with the least amount of guess work and leaps of logic

1. Judge’s Name

Hi my name is Santino Varela, If I'm in your round just call me chair/panel/panellist depending on my role in that round.

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

The sweet-spot is probably in between these two speeds (160wpm), but if you must choose, slower is always better!

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

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

Honestly it depends if the rebuttals made by the first rebuttal speaker were damaging to the case. In most cases yes you should do your best to reply to all speakers, but if you'd rather deal with the substantives, I will not penalize you for being strategic with your time.

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

I will almost always have a decision ready, 1 minute after the debate ends, but I do consult my notes to write my issues and oral adjudication, or to overview if my initial decision was correct especially for closer rounds. I mainly write down argument handles, lines of analysis, rebuttals, and impacts in my notes.

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

If you can explain things clearly and substantively with comparison to why you are better than the other team through logic and narrative storytelling, you'll have no problem getting the win from me. Remember, it is better to say 1 argument that is rock solid with clear impacts than 10 arguments that are flimsy and unclear.

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

Nope, I hope to learn from you and your speeches as much as I'd like you to learn from what I have to say about debate!

1.Judge’s Name: Pio Ventura

2.Tell us about your debate judging experience:I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience: I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum. 4.What is your speaking speed preference? Conversational speed (120-150wpm) 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)? a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal, I consider it a dropped argument. 7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes? b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision. 8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? For constructive arguments, I primarily consider the logical links and flow to assess if these are complete. If a premise is not shown to be directly linked the the conclusion/outcome/benefit being argued for, I am less persuaded by the argument. For more responsive/rebuttal-heavy cases, I am only persuaded by a harm that is being argued if there is a clear comparative that is also shown. I am more persuaded if it is shown how your side is able to resolve or avoid a problem being pushed onto an opponent. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you? Broadly, I judge based on how logically sound arguments are built. In formats that allow research, I not only consider the credibility of the sources used, but also if they are even directly related to the topic of the motion.

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.

As a judge for this junior debate, I believe in creating a fair, educational, and supportive environment for all participants. Here are some key points that outline my judge philosophy. I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented within the round. I will remain unbiased and base my decisions solely on the quality of the arguments and how effectively they are presented. What's more, I value clear and organized arguments. I encourage debaters to structure their speeches logically, present their points clearly, and provide strong examples and evidence to support their claims. I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and courtesy. Debaters should engage in constructive dialogue and focus on the arguments presented rather than personal attacks What else, I will also actively listen to all speakers and consider each argument carefully. It's important for debaters to speak clearly and make sure their key points are effectively communicated The most important part is that I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills and analyze the topic from various perspectives. I encourage debaters to think creatively and consider the broader implications of their argument s.I value debaters who can adapt their arguments based on their opponents' rebuttals and effectively respond to counterarguments. Flexibility and the ability to think on your feet are important skills in debate.

After the round, I will provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills. I believe that feedback is essential for growth and learning, and I encourage debaters to use this feedback to enhance their debating abilities. Ultimately, debate is a learning experience. I encourage all participants to approach each round with a growth mindset, seeking to learn from each other and improve their skills with every debate.