I do appreciate very good idea generation, very comparative cases and responses.

It is very nice that students are also able to utilise good case strategy.

Hi there,
I’m Mitchell Akinjayeju, preferred pronouns are she/ her. I am a regular debater and public speaker. During the course of my debating career, I’ve been able to gather ample judging experiences and also skills necessary for judging different debating formats and styles.

Conflicts: None

PERSONAL NOTE:

I prioritize a fair, positive and highly engaging room. I also hold in high regards time management, role fulfillment, good structural speeches, amongst others. It is also necessary and advised to engage with context, framing and arguments of other teams even if you do not agree with their speeches, providing a counter factual in your own speech where deemed necessary.

I take account of everything a speaker says irregardless of the pace of speech due to human diversity and nature although, I prefer medium paced speeches as it makes the flow of point taking easier.

Special Consideration for Virtual Debates:

Cameras should be kept on at all times. In instances where you can’t keep your camera on, do well to communicate that and there’ll be an exception.

Thank you.

Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

Sup

I did PF for 4 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching. I also debated a little bit in college as well.. I have coached PF for 6 years and LD for 3.

Per usual, I make an effort to update my paradigm for every ohio state tournament and discuss my general paradigm, current trends in ohio debate (from my view point), and then any specific PF/LD comments.

Generally speaking, my flow is going to be pretty detailed. A lot of my decisions are made heavily on the flow. However, weighing your arguments is really crucial, especially in the scenario where each side has the same # of arguments won. On the concept of extending/frontlining, to me, if you want to win an argument, it needs to be extended/brought up in each speech. Like, if my contention 2 is going to win me this round because it is soooo important, i better hear about it in every speech. At the same time, I don't think you need to extend/reread your blocks to the opponent's case if they do not address them, simply just say they didn't address them. Which brings me to a pretty important concept... "my opponent did not respond to this argument": 1) if you say this, and they did in fact, respond to the argument, that is bad for you. 2) If you say this and they did not respond to the argument at all, it's straightforward and good for you. 3) if you can explain why your opponent's responses miss the mark and do not actually address the argument that you are making - this is really good for you (I feel like people don't take advantage of this enough).

That brings me to my "current trend in debate". Full transparency, I am typically in tab nowadays at tournaments and judge significantly less than I used to. This year specifically, I find that at the end of the round, a lot of the contention level arguments are being won by neither side and are a wash. Here's an example of why this is happening: Team A reads a contention. Team B gives 3 blocks to the contention. Team A will frontline and respond to 2 of those blocks. Team B will only extend the unresponded to block and defend one of the blocks. Then team A will say that they actually responded to all blocks. It becomes a mess. You are probably reading this saying "Oh I would never do that" or "wow why is this guy spending so much time explaining a random scenario". BUT, you all do it! the best debaters are the ones that can address everything on the flow. That does not mean they frontline all 12 responses against their case, but they have the knowledge and understanding of their argument to know which responses matter, which responses can be grouped, which responses can be indicted, and which responses can be ignored. If you want to be the best, prove it on the flow.

LD - I really like a good value/VC debate. But, if they are just the same thing, just have the contention level debate. With that being said, more often than not people just say "our values are the same" when they actually aren't.

PF - I debated PF when summary was 2 minutes. It’s now 3. That changes EVERYTHING. It’s basically an extension of the rebuttal. Like, if I were a PF debater today, I would go full flow the first 3 speeches and then use the final focus to analyze the flow.

Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.

Ryan Corso, He/Him/His

Ph.D. Student, Graduate Assistant at Wayne State University

Email: ryancorsogonzales@gmail.com

Updated Fall 2023

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California and a one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji Lange and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville; I was previously the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, where I coached LD, Parli, IPDA, and Speech. I'm now a Ph.D. Student my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Neoliberalism, Assemblages, and Post-Dialectics. I am a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach at Wayne State coaching NEDA and Policy. I have competed in Parli, LD, and IPDA. I am comfortable with policy, speed, kritiks, and theory.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, or fascists args tho) just be prepared to justify your actions and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran every policy arg in the book, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple world's paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Theory:

Theory should consist of a clear interp, and a unique violation (that explains the operative nature of that specific interp), standards that frame the offense and impacts. I don't default to theory being A Priori anymore and will evaluate it under either DTD or DTA, you tell me. RVI's are always illegitimate.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link for me to even consider voting for it. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

Final notes:

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. ex: religion based kritiks

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person. This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will for an in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible.

*DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Good Luck, Have Fun!

I prioritise good explanation and very good style in terms of wit and use of persuasive emotive language

Name: Jeff Geers

School Affiliation: University of Dayton

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Extemporaneous Debate, Policy

What is your current occupation? Instructor, Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery - I like to hear a dynamic, energetic speaking style, but this isn't an auctioneer tryout; take your time and clearly present your points

Flowing/Note-Taking - While I might be flowing your argument in my notes, I'm listening for the clash of opposing 'big ideas' - My final decision in the round is based more on who convinced me overall, not whether any one specific point was addressed or not.

Do you value Argument over Style, Style over Argument or Argument and Style equally? Both are important, but in the end a clear, cogent argument will win out over charismatic but superficial debating.

I value creativity in critical thinking, and like to see new and different approaches to issues. However, squirrel-y attempts to trap opponents with non-topical distractions put me in a bad mood...

I am a graduate of Ball State University where I competed for 3 years in my undergrad in Crossfire and was a Graduate Coach for 2 years of Crossfire, Rapid Fire and Policy. I have over 3 years of judging experience. Currently, I am an Initiatives Coordinator for a Workforce Development Company and an Assistant Debate Coach for the Ball State Debate Team.

Argumentation- I am looking for clash in argumentation. When two teams are arguing two separate things in their own lanes with no clash, it makes for a lackluster round. Work to clash with the opposing team's arguments and give me a clear roadmap, weighing mechanism and signposts throughout.

Delivery - I am not looking for spreading; please don't try to talk super fast just to say more in your speech. A speech is more effective when you have a clear and easy to follow delivery pace. I am also looking for eye contact. Slow down, speak clearly and let's have a great round!

Decorum- While I appreciate passion and rounds can become heated, I expect all debaters to maintain decorum.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

"I am a seasoned professional in the realm of debate, holding expertise as a debater, judge, and coach with over a decade of dedicated experience. As an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. To me, debating revolves around the cultivation of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess extensive knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I keep a rigorous note, I prefer argument over style but both are fairly important and I listen very attentively although I would encourage fair pacing and flow.

Email Address: 9cassassin@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

Kritiks : a good K is cheat code and a bad K is your enemy.

I appreciate well-articulated kritiks that align with the debate context. However, if the kritik lacks relevance to the topic or the arguments presented, it might not carry as much weight in my decision.

1. A thorough explanation of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will significantly enhance your chances of persuading me. Ensure clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.
2. Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative, demonstrating its significance and how it interacts with other arguments in the round.
3. Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.
4. Use real-world examples or analogies to illustrate the implications of the kritik, making it more accessible for both the judge and your opponents.
5. Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Anticipate opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.
6. While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are crucial.
7. Feel free to engage in a dialogue about the kritik during cross-examination if it enhances understanding and provides an opportunity for clarification.

Policy: Here are five solid cheat codes

1. Deep Research:

   • Thoroughly research and understand the topic. The more knowledgeable you are about the subject matter, the better you can construct and defend your arguments.

2. Effective Evidence Usage:

   • Use high-quality and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Ensure that your evidence is recent, credible, and directly supports the points you are making.

3. Clear Argument Structure:

   • Organize your arguments in a clear and logical structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to support them, and explain the implications. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

4. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterarguments, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

5. Strong Cross-Examination Skills:

   • Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Here are some tips for conducting effective cross-examination:

1. Pay close attention to your opponent's responses during their speeches to identify areas to probe further.
2. Enter cross-examination with specific goals in mind. Whether it's exposing weaknesses in their argument or eliciting concessions, clarity in your objectives is key.
3. Formulate questions that are direct and easy to understand. Avoid complex or convoluted queries that may confuse your opponent or the judge.
4. Use questions to guide the narrative in a direction favorable to your case. Steer the conversation toward your key points and away from your opponent's strengths.
5. Craft questions that may lead your opponent to concede certain points or admit weaknesses in their arguments. These concessions can be powerful tools in your subsequent speeches.
6. Instead of giving your opponent room to elaborate, frame questions that require concise responses. This helps maintain control of the cross-examination.
7. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the cross-examination. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments rather than the person.
8. Take note of responses during cross-examination that you can use to your advantage in your subsequent speeches. Effective cross-examination should contribute to your overall strategy.
9. Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.
10. Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Strategic Relevance: Focus on arguments that have clear strategic importance in the debate. Avoid going off-topic or introducing irrelevant points.

Clarity Over Speed: Prioritize clarity over speed. It's essential that arguments are comprehensible, and spreading too quickly can hinder this. Make sure your arguments make sense and are well-articulated.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than flooding the debate with numerous arguments, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Speaker Points: While you may not consistently receive super high speaker points, aim to make substantive contributions to the debate. Engage in meaningful clash and provide clear reasoning for your positions.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening: I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in thoughtful discourse.

Objective Evaluation: My judgments are based on the merits of the arguments presented, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Inquisitive Mindset: Don't hesitate to read and ask questions. A curious approach can lead to deeper understanding and more compelling arguments.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

Defend Your Positions: Be ready to defend your ideological commitments with well-reasoned arguments and evidence.

Confidence: Confidence in your arguments and delivery can make a significant difference in the outcome of debates.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Best regards,

Mohammed Habib.

HEPHZIBAH IBUKUN

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at the University OF ILORIN studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

General Expectations of Me (Considerations for Your Attention)

I typically operate at a "flay" level on average and "flow" level on good days. Here are things you shouldn't expect from me:

1. Assumptions About My Knowledge: Always explain things fully as I may not be familiar with what you know.

2. Post-round Feedback: You're welcome to post-round me, and I'm open to feedback, but it won't necessarily change my decision. All influencing factors must occur during the debate.

3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions:I'll disclose in elimination rounds unless instructed otherwise. In prelims, disclosure is not expected unless explicitly stated.

4. Clarity Over Speed: I flow on paper, so speaking too quickly may cause me to miss points. Remember, defense isn't sticky in PF; coverage and clarity matter.

5. Debate Philosophy: I prioritize technical arguments over truth by a narrow margin. I aim to identify the debate's winner based on the participants' performance.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Speaker Points:

- I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Clarity, fluidity, confidence, and decorum are crucial.

- Avoid yelling at opponents during cross and maintain proper decorum throughout the round.

Structure/Organization:

- Signposting is essential for clarity and coherence. Lack of signposting can lead to confusion.

Framework (FW):

- In PF, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless specified otherwise. In LD, a clear Value and Value Criterion are necessary.

Regarding the Decision (RFD):

- I judge tabula rasa, relying only on what I hear in the round. Dropped points and extensions are crucial but must be clearly articulated.

SPEED:

- I'm a paper flow judge and don't flow on a computer. Avoid spreading or speed reading; clarity in communication is vital.

---

Should other considerations arise, I'll update this list accordingly

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

She/her pronouns.

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that it can be more convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via blessingtejumoluwa@gmail.com

Let me start with the two most important words: be civil!

As a competitor, my experiences were entirely in evidence-based debating. I started as a policy debater, who practiced speed and spreading, in the CEDA circuits and some occasional public debate.

As a coach, I was first introduced to NEDA, where debaters have to be more audience-friendly and consider quality delivery in both public forum (crossfire) and policy debates. That circuit later added limited prep in the form of rapidfire. I ended up with several years of experience coaching and strategizing in all three of those forms of debate, coming to appreciate the balance between reasonable speeds of delivery and rational argumentation.

My debate experience later came to include significant stints coaching and judging in LD and CEDA-style policy, with some very limited time with Parli and IPDA. Because of that unbalanced experience, I have high expectations for evidence, no matter what sort of debate or resolution is at hand.

Regardless of the debate format, I personally approach judging from a tabula rasa mentality-- that is, a blank slate. I won't make an argument or a connection for you, even if it seems painfully obvious to me. I will entertain any kind of argument (from technical arguments to K's), but I appreciate debaters who can directly weigh the sides against one another and value impact calculus. Never assume the impact or the application of your arguments to be so obvious it doesn't need to be said. I definitely lean more traditionalist in terms of argumentation, especially on policy-based resolutions, so while I think more esoteric arguments like K's and such can be valuable, I expect them to have a reasonable link to the round and an impact that outweighs the opponents'-- and those should be made clear to the judge.

I also am pretty non-interventionist in the way I read the flow of the debate-- don't assume I will make connections on your behalf.

I appreciate good delivery, but I believe it is always less important than argumentation, logic, and evidence. You should not expect a bombastic tone to overcome a well-reasoned, well-supported argument. While I have experience with speed debating in my past, it is no longer my forte; I can keep up, but it's helpful if you very clearly and deliberately read your tags as audible cues.

As I already alluded to, I am a major proponent of civility in debate which I feel is too often ignored. I expect students to maintain civil discourse with one another in spite of their passion. Aggression and condescension, especially during cross-examinations, will be detrimental to your cause.

I come from a background entrenched in debate, where the art of persuasion and clarity reign supreme. Having once been a debater myself, I deeply value the importance of effective communication and logical reasoning in any discourse. My approach to discussions is rooted in the principle that understanding between opponents is paramount. Clarity in communication is not just a preference, but a necessity for fruitful exchange.

In my view, the hallmark of a compelling argument lies not only in the evidence presented but also in the manner in which it is articulated. While evidence serves as a pillar of support, it must be skillfully woven into the fabric of the argument to resonate convincingly. I advocate for the establishment of a robust foundation at the outset of any discussion, laying the groundwork upon which the edifice of the argument can stand firm.

Moreover, I hold a deep appreciation for the importance of evidence elucidation. Simply presenting evidence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by thorough explanation and analysis. This approach ensures that even those approaching the discussion with minimal prior knowledge can grasp the intricacies of the subject matter. Thus, I approach each round with the mindset of a novice, ready to absorb information and insights anew.

In our engagement, I aim to create an environment conducive to intellectual exploration and growth. By adhering to the principles of clarity, evidence substantiation, and thorough explanation, I endeavor to foster a dynamic and enriching exchange of ideas. Together, let us embark on a journey of discovery and enlightenment, where every round is an opportunity for learning and mutual understanding.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in BP, LD, WSDC, AP, PF and Policy Debates.

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

Email: Dghostdebate@gmail.com

- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.

- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.

- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.

- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.

- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.

- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.

- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.

- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.

Closing Thoughts:

"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.

Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."

Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir Akorede. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they engage the opponent's arguments while making their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge adjudicate the debate.

I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.

When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy it when they stick to their assigned tasks.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment, and other techniques used in debate.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e. when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build a partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after the stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Hey there

My name is Olowookere Ganiyat (she/her). I am an undergraduate of University of Ilorin, Nigeria. Ihave experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have some experiences as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: olowookereganiyat15@gmail.com

Conflicts: I don't have any

As a judge and educator, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Best wishes

Hello,

I am Opoola Opeyemi. I am a seasoned debater and an experienced judge.

I am quite versatile and experienced in different forms of debating such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debating format (WSDC) , Public Forum debates (PF), Parliamentary Debates, Spar debates and so on.

As a judge, I proritize logic and sufficient analysis; how speakers are able to logically defend their side without missing any logical link and showing why their arguments win the debate.

I also pioritze Equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants, as I prioritize a safe and friendly atmosphere for debate.

I will very much appreciate if you don't rush with your speeches, however I will be willing to note whatsoever you give as arguments during the round.

Thank you!

As a seasoned judge with few years of coaching and judging experience, I prioritize a conversational delivery and balanced use of jargon for clarity in communication. My meticulous note-taking ensures accurate recall of key arguments.

I equally value both argument and style, emphasizing the foundational importance of substantive arguments. In evaluating debates, I prioritize content, structure, and adherence to the topic, favoring arguments with real-world impacts and diverse perspectives.

Reflecting on my judging experience, I find that well-supported arguments tied to real-world impacts are consistently the most compelling in previous rounds.

In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful demeanor, actively fostering a constructive and competitive spirit aligned with the educational goals of debate.

Adhering to judging principles, I commit to impartiality, active listening, and fairness. Open-mindedness guides my approach, ensuring receptiveness to diverse perspectives without pre-judgment. Respect, adaptability, and encouragement of engagement are fundamental to my judging philosophy.

Upholding integrity, I steer clear of conflicts of interest and provide transparent criteria for decision-making. Constructive feedback is integral, offering positive reinforcement and specific, actionable advice for improvement.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

She/her pronouns

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that I can be convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com

Hello, I'm Mary Sandals. I have accumulated expertise in a variety of debating styles and formats over a long period of time, including Public Forum (PF), World School Debate Championship (WSDC), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australians, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), and British Parliamentary (BP).

Speakers should, I suppose, be knowledgeable about the various motion sorts, the kinds of arguments that ought to be made in them, how to bear their burdens, and other tactics for debating.
In my experience as a judge, presenters who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing—which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own—tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge will decide the argument.

I like it when a whip or summary speaker understands that their role is not to offer opinions and stays true to their given duties.

It seems to me that speakers should be aware of the kinds of arguments that belong in each kind of motion, how to complete their burdens and other strategies employed in debating.

I like it when debaters stay true to their duties; for example, when a whip or summary speaker understands that their function is to refute, strengthen, and justify their partner's position, rather than to present new ideas.

With a distinguished record spanning 7 years, I bring a wealth of experience and insight to the world of debating. Over the course of my journey, I've had the privilege of attending more than 100 tournaments, each one serving as a milestone in my growth and development as a judge.

My expertise encompasses a wide array of prestigious events, including the renowned World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), EUDC, where I've not only participated but also adjudicated with precision and fairness. Furthermore, I've lent my adjudicative skills to the United Asian Debating Championships (UADC), PAUDC, navigating the complexities of argumentation.

In addition to my involvement in WUDC and UADC, I've honed my skills across various debate formats, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) and speech formats including HI, Improv, OO among others. This versatility has equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the diverse nuances and strategies inherent in different styles of debate.

I am also a big believer of feedback because that is how we all grow, so speakers can be rest assured of accurate and logical feedback.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

Speed and signposting are crucial. Avoid card dumps and ensure clean docs. Distinguish between card reading and analysis. Ethics matter - no cheating or card clipping. No screaming, and repeated interrupting in CX is a voter.

Tech over truth. Read cards, but don't misconstrue evidence. I prefer speed but slow down on analytics not in the doc. Theory is great if well-done; collapse to theory in 2NR/2AR. Encourage disclosure; false disclosure is bad.

Disads: Prefer aff-specific links, overview on DA/Case collapse.

New in the 2: Not a fan unless justified. Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine; more lowers threshold. Judge kick default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Won't vote solely on solvency.

Kritiks (Neg): Assume I'm unfamiliar; explain K and alt clearly. Well-versed in cap, militarism, security, and fem. Specific K links are more compelling. FW is essential.

Kritiks (Aff): Evolved on K affs; framework arguments important. Kritikal advantages are cool; explain what my ballot does.

Case: Love turns; vote if properly impacted and weighed. Quality evidentiary analysis rewarded.

Fun Speaks: Clever, appropriate humor gets higher speaker points. Rewriting this shows understanding and commitment to debate norms.

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.