NHSDLC Spring2025 Wuhan Offline
2025 — CN
Original Oratory Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJudge Paradigm Template
1. Name
TAPIWANASHE EVANS JIMU
2. Debating experiences with awards
High School District Debate winner
Provincial High School Debate finalists
3. Judging experiences
I have managed to Judge PF, PS and Elementary debates under WSDA and NHSDLC in several tournaments in Hangzhou, Qingdao, Shanghai and Wuhan
going through training of learning how to judge JWSD
I have taken most of the judge certifications
4. Judging preferences or judging criteria
In a debate judging, I pay attention to facts with clear evidence, clear understanding of the motion and effective argumentation. I prefer debaters who engage with the opposing arguments and doing so with good professionalism. I appreciate debaters who follow the rules of the debate which include being on time, finish their argument within the time limit. My judgement on the winner is not based on only logical reasoning but on who delivered and argued their motion well and gave a good model. Throughout the debate I will be writing notes on the debate and use that as my guide to deliver my judgement which helps me with identifying the winner.
5. Personal Tencent Meeting Code/ Personal Voov Meeting Code
#腾讯会议：690-043-2434
6. Location
Ma’anshan China
TONY KIMANI
Age: 24
Current occupation: Undergraduate Student
College: Central South University, Hunan, Changsha
During my four years of high school years, I participated in various debates as a speaker, and in the 2018-2019 national debate, I participated as a judge. Some debate topics included:
1.Universal Basic Income (UBI): Should governments provide a guaranteed income to all citizens, regardless of their employment status, to alleviate poverty and promote economic stability?
2.Internet Privacy: Is it justified for governments or corporations to monitor and collect personal data?
3.Genetic Engineering and CRISPR Technology: Should humans be allowed to modify the genetic makeup of living organisms, including human embryos, to treat diseases or enhance desirable traits?
4.Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Should societies prioritize the protection of free speech, even if it means allowing hate speech?
I consider fast talking as a level of confidence and time consciousness as long as the speed doesn’t render the words said by the speaker unclear. Politeness is a key aspect of giving out speaker points as it ensures order in the debate room. I make a judgment on the winner based on the logic of the clash and how the speaker debates the claim. This, however, needs substantial up-to-date evidence and logic.
I would urge debaters to be composed and argue their points without rushing. If debaters are well prepared to debate either as a pro or con of a debate, then they will stand in a good position in making reasonable claims and in the crossfire.
In speeches, I like to see confidence and composure. It displays good understanding of the topic and shows that the speaker practiced enough before the presentation.
I approach debates with an open mind, seeking to provide constructive feedback and promote a positive educational experience for all participants. As a judge, I strive to be fair, impartial, and attentive to the arguments presented in each round.
I believe that debate is a valuable platform for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and effective communication. Debaters need to engage in thoughtful analysis, support their claims with evidence, and demonstrate logical reasoning. I encourage debaters to be respectful, considerate, and inclusive in their interactions with others.
In evaluating rounds, I consider several factors, including (But not limited to):
-
Content: I assess the strength and clarity of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the logical coherence of the presented case.
-
Delivery: I take into account the debaters' speaking skills, including articulation, tone, and the ability to effectively engage with the audience.
-
Rebuttal and Clash: I value debaters' ability to engage with opposing arguments, provide effective rebuttals, and engage in meaningful clashes with their opponents.
-
Strategy: I appreciate strategic decision-making, including the ability to adapt to the debate's flow, utilize time efficiently, and construct persuasive narratives.
-
Etiquette: I expect all participants to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, respect, and professionalism. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language will not be entertained.
Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debates, and I look forward to a productive and enjoyable tournament.
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.
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.
2nd 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:
#蠾讯ä¼ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂè®®:451-866-1235
Tabroom Email address: mbonyeyatinashe911@gmail.com
Location: Zaozhuang University Shandong Province Zaozhuang CityShizhong District Qiushi Rd