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.

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.

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.

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.