In evaluating a debate, I prioritize the following criteria based on the overall effectiveness of the speakers in presenting and defending their arguments:

1. Argumentation & Logical Structure: The core of any debate is the quality of the arguments presented. I will prioritize clear, well-structured arguments with sound reasoning and evidence. Speakers must present their case in a logical manner, with clear claims, warrants (supporting evidence), and impacts (why it matters). The better the organization and the depth of the argument, the higher the speaker will rank.

2. Rebuttal & Responsiveness: How effectively each speaker responds to the opposing side’s arguments is crucial. Rebuttals should address specific points made by the opponent, demonstrating an understanding of their position while offering counterarguments. I expect debaters to engage with their opponent's points directly and demonstrate critical thinking.

3. Evidence & Data: The use of relevant, credible evidence is essential. I will look for debaters to use statistics, studies, examples, and expert opinions to back up their claims. Arguments without evidence or those that rely on weak sources will be less persuasive. The strength of the evidence presented and how well it is integrated into the argument will influence my decision.

4. Clarity & Presentation: While content is paramount, clarity in delivery matters. A speaker’s ability to present their arguments in a clear, concise, and understandable manner is essential. Overly complex language or convoluted arguments that confuse the audience will be penalized. I value eloquent speakers who can explain their points effectively and remain organized throughout the debate.

5. Persuasiveness & Impact: A strong debater must not only present logical arguments but also persuade the audience and judge. Persuasiveness involves both the emotional appeal and the rational appeal of the argument. The debater should demonstrate the significance of their points and the implications of their stance. I will pay close attention to how well each speaker highlights the real-world impact of their arguments.

6. Engagement & Delivery Style: A debater's ability to maintain the audience’s attention is crucial. This includes good pacing, eye contact, and confidence in delivery. Hand gestures, vocal variation, and maintaining an engaging presence will also influence the score. Speakers should avoid excessive filler words or nervous habits.

7. Strategy & Teamwork (in team debates): In team debates, collaboration and strategy are important. Each team member should complement the other’s arguments, avoid redundancy, and strategically decide who tackles which aspects of the argument. A team that works cohesively will receive higher marks than one with disjointed contributions.

Final Considerations: I evaluate the debate as a whole, considering who provided the strongest overall case and who best managed the dynamic of the debate. A debater who demonstrates the ability to adapt, refute effectively, and leave a strong, memorable closing argument will be ranked highly.

This paradigm reflects my focus on argument strength, clarity, and persuasion while appreciating strategic thinking and effective presentation.

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

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.

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.

Judge Philosophies

1.Judge’s Name: Tinashe Mbonyeya

2.Tell us about your debate judging experience.

a.I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

3.Tell us about your debating experience.

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

4.What is your speaking speed preference

c.TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5.How much do you know about the topic?

c.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?

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

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

• The winning team is the team who best proves their side of the topic some of the factor includes,

1.Resolution Understanding

- Clarity: Understanding the resolution and its implications is crucial.

- Context: Knowledge of the topic's background and current relevance.

2. Evidence and Research

- Quality of Evidence: Reliable sources and data strengthen arguments.

- Relevance: Information must directly support the case being made.

3. Argument Structure

- Logical Flow: Arguments should be coherent and well-organized.

- Impact: Emphasizing the significance of arguments on the resolution.

4. Counterarguments

- Anticipation: Identifying potential counterarguments beforehand.

- Rebuttal Preparedness: Being ready to effectively counter opposition claims.

5. Persuasiveness

- Rhetorical Techniques: Use of ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience.

- Delivery: Tone, pace, and body language can significantly affect reception.

6. Judging Criteria

- Frameworks: Understanding how judges evaluate arguments (e.g., weighing impacts).

- Prioritization: Knowing which arguments are likely to resonate more with judges.

7. Team Dynamics

- Collaboration: Effective teamwork and communication strategies.

- Role Allocation: Assigning specific roles based on strengths.

8. Audience Engagement

- Understanding the Audience: Tailoring arguments to resonate with the audience.

- Emotional Appeal: Connecting with the audience on an emotional level can enhance persuasiveness.

9. Time Management

- Pacing Arguments: Allocating time effectively to cover all points.

- Preparation for Crossfire: Anticipating questions and managing responses within time limits.

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

- During the crossfire students should be try to address all the rebuttal for this may also be used on factoring which team wins.

TINASHE MBONYEYA

Debating Experience:

Obtained all NSDA certifications and they are all linked to my tabroom account (mbonyeyatinashe911@gmail.com)

First place in 2016at Zimbabwe Public Speaking and Debating Championship Marondera district.

1st Price, at District Schools Debate Tournament.

2^nd Best Public Speaker at High school District competitions.

Judging Experience:

I have obtained all NSDA Certifications and l have judged 2024 TOC Asia Summer nationals offline Shenzhen and 2024 NHSDLC Zhengzhou PS and PF offline .I know I have a strong sense of fairness and objectivity. My ability to analyze situations critically, communicate effectively, and make well-reasoned decisions sets me apart. I am committed to upholding justice, treating all parties with respect and impartiality.

Judging Preference or Judging criteria:

As a debate judge, I evaluate the clarity and relevance of foundational premise. This is an essential starting point as it lays out the groundwork for the entire debate and build a strong persuasive argument.

Following that, I will examine the logic of the arguments and the coherence of the criterion. It is important that the criterion aligns with the value premise and establish a clear framework for assessment. If a criterion is well defined the argument is more convincing.

I also analyze the contentions and evidence put forth, looking for effective support, logical reasoning, and compelling argumentation. The evidence must be relevant, credible and effectively to reinforce the debater’s position.

I also assess the depth (i.e) (how thoughtful) and responsiveness of the counter-argument .A robust counter-argument should reflect an understanding of the opposing viewpoint, while a successful rebuttal effectively challenges and refutes those arguments.

Finally, I consider the overall structure, lucidity and persuasiveness of the debate. A well-organized debate that is clear and free from confusion is essential for delivering a compelling argument. The debater who presents the more convincing case by demonstrating a solid comprehension of the value and criterion, effectively addressing opposing arguments and showcasing strong persuasiveness skills, will emerge as the victor in the debate.

Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ PersonalVoovMeeting Code:

#èÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ…¾è®¯ä¼Âš议:451-866-1235

Tabroom Email address: mbonyeyatinashe911@gmail.com

Location: Zaozhuang University Shandong Province Zaozhuang CityShizhong District Qiushi Rd

As a previous participator in debate at a young age to coming of age to be a judge, below are my expectations from the contestant.

I appreciate well-structured arguments, logical reasoning, and evidence-based claims. While I enjoy innovative strategies, they must be grounded in solid debate fundamentals.

I prefer substance over style, so prioritize depth of analysis over speed, provide clear framework for the round. If you're running a specific theory or kritik, make sure to explain its relevance to the round. I appreciate when debaters engage in clash and clearly weigh impacts.

Quality over quantity. I value well-researched, credible evidence. Make sure your evidence is recent and relevant to the resolution. Misrepresentation of evidence will negatively impact your speaker points.

Engage with your opponent's arguments. I want to see clash and effective rebuttals. Address the key points of contention and explain why your case is superior. If you extend arguments, ensure they are impact full land weigh them against your opponent's case.

I assign speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, and effective cross-examination. Be respectful to your opponent and avoid unnecessary aggression. I reward creativity and strategic thinking.

While I have my preferences, I am open to different debating styles. Adapt to the round and your opponent. If you have unique arguments or strategies, explain them clearly.

I am open to non-traditional arguments, but they must be well-explained and justified. Help me understand the relevance of these arguments to the resolution.

Debate is a learning experience. Enjoy the round, be respectful, and take constructive feedback to improve. I am here to fairly evaluate the arguments presented and provide feedback for growth.

Wish you all best of luck.

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

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

Experience Level
I have an extensive background in debate, having been actively involved as a debater during both my school and university years. As a member of my university’s literary society, I was deeply engaged in preparing and presenting public forum debates. Over four years, I contributed both on stage as a participant and backstage in organizational and coaching roles.
Topic Familiarity
I have frequently judged and coached debates on diverse topics, providing me with a versatile perspective and adaptability to new resolutions.

Preferences on Delivery and Jargon
I appreciate clarity and conciseness in delivery. While I am comfortable with technical language and debate jargon, I expect it to be explained when used in excess. A moderate pace that balances substance with comprehension is ideal.

Note-Taking Approach
I maintain a rigorous flow, noting key arguments, responses, and clashes. My notes focus on tracking the development of the debate to ensure fair evaluation based on logical progression and rebuttals.

Value of Argument vs. Style
I value both argument and style equally. Strong arguments must be complemented by confident, engaging delivery. A conversational tone with compelling rhetoric often resonates most with me
Specific Criteria for Assessment
When assessing a debate, I consider:

Clash: How well debaters address and refute opposing arguments.
Structure: Clarity in presenting arguments and rebuttals.
Evidence: Use of credible, relevant data to support claims.
Engagement: Effective communication with judges and opponents.
Strategy: Consistency in argumentation and adaptation during the round.
Persuasive Arguments in Past Judging
I find arguments that are logically sound, well-supported by evidence, and tied to the overarching resolution to be most persuasive. Emotional appeals can enhance persuasiveness when appropriately tied to the debate’s context.

Expectations for Conduct
I expect debaters to maintain respect for one another and adhere to decorum. Disruption, personal attacks, or dismissive behavior detracts from the spirit of debate. Constructive engagement and professionalism are key to a successful round.

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.

I have experience judging PF debates both online and offline with NHSDLC over the past several months. When it comes to speaking speed, I find that a moderate pace is preferable for clear communication and easy understanding.

In terms of aggressiveness, it can be effective if done respectfully. Maintaining a professional tone is crucial, and personal attacks or disruptive gestures are never acceptable.

To determine the winner, I focus on the coherence and accuracy of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery. I don't entertain new arguments in the summary speech, emphasizing the consolidation of main points. The winner is typically the debater with the strongest, well-supported arguments and effective rebuttals. The goal is a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with the winner being the one who best achieves that objective.

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.

Location:Beijing

University: Renmin University of China

Current Occupancy :Graduate Student

Tabroom email: henryyyang@qq.com

Wechat: Henry_yang_2002

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

Debating:PF, BP, Chinese Style Debating

Judging: PF, OO, Junior Debate

I have been debating for 7 years since 2017.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

I prefer debaters who speak at a moderately fast pace but articulate their points clearly. When debaters speak too fast and blur key arguments or statements, it compromises my ability to fully understand and evaluate their case. When debaters refer to statistics and showing references, it is okay to speak faster as long as I can understand what it is for. However, when it comes to the central claims of the contention and the important logical analysis, etc. slowing down slightly can emphasize their importance and enhance clarity, which helps me understand better.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I don’t really appreciate aggressiveness in debates. An aggressive attitude itself does not make me value a debater’s arguments more. In fact, it can take away from the debate by focusing too much on tone rather than the content of the arguments. For me, good debating is about clear ideas, good logical & statistical analysis, and engaging respectfully with opposing viewpoints.

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

Ultimately, my vote depends on how much impact of the team’s arguments can stand till the end of the debate. If arguments of the teams are parallel, I will also consider the importance of the issue of the arguments themselves, as discussed during the debate.

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

Arguments should be BOTH statistically and logically supported, especially for the counter-intuitive ones. Even if there are many figures in the speech, lack of logical analysis can lead to my less credit to the arguments, especially when the logic is challenged by the opponents and they fail to properly explain it. The same applies to arguments that lack empirical evidence.

I give extra credit to quality arguments that are unique and can stand out among the homogenized arguments in the tournament. (But of course, overall impact always comes first.)

If a debater attempts to mislead the debate with a biased definition and fails to provide adequate explanation, I will not accept this definition.