hey everyone, I'm ebenezer and hopefully I get the chance to judge you if you're reading my paradigm. I go by he/him pronouns and come from a pure debate background (sorry to any performers I may judge)

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
• Not proving your arguments (not enough to give a basic claim to something - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they met some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

• Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more and are more likely than your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact lvl must concede the warrant lvl (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant lvl weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant lvl (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact lvl.
• Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round - doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge direction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side
• General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. don’t tell me X happens in a vacuum and immediately expect me to believe that it’s true, I must know why that claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. I had stylistic challenges of my own so I understand why a heavy focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good debating. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. arg quality > rhetoric. ideally, the best speeches have all 3 but my pivot is more towards content and strategy.

Principled args are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that was well established but poorly leveraged against other arguments. all and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun

if you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

Hi! I'm an incoming college sophomore currently competing in BP/ APDA, and championed WSDC with Team USA in 2023. WSD preferences/ thoughts below, but I don't think I have any particularly hot takes -- feel free to run whatever you want (within reason) as long as you're persuasive, and have fun!

On principles: I won't automatically weigh the principle before the practical. You need to explain to me why you should. I also won't automatically discount a "principle" just because it's hung. I'll just evaluate it as a practical argument.

On third substantives:You don't need one if you don't want one. Just make sure you're flagging extension material in the 2 if you choose not to run a 3rd argument.

Thirds, replies, and new material:I won't evaluate entirely new mechanisms. I won't evaluate entirely new impacts. New analysis of mechanisms and impacts that were brought up in the 1 or 2 is fine in the 3rd speech. New refutation is fine in the 3rd speech. I'm not going to evaluate new analysis and ref in the reply -- you should be using this speech to highlight your winning arguments and explain how you've already beaten their winning arguments.

Interventionism: If your mechanism is egregiously wrong (think: the sky is green levels of wrong) I won't factor it into the round even if your opponents don't respond at all. Otherwise I'll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the less substantiated your claim is, the less of a response it requires.

POIs:will dock speaks if you don't take at least one, assuming they're offered.

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Yes, this paradigm is intentionally in Comic Sans. Enjoy!!

EXPERIENCE
Member of the NSDA's USA Debate Education Program for WSD. Captain of the Naperville Central HS Debate Team. Semifinalist at 2023 TOC in Congressional Debate.

CONGRESS
I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and deliveryin that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

• REFUTE -- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
• EXTEND -- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
• WEIGHING -- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
  Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

• ARGUMENTS -- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
• EVIDENCE -- Give strong quantifications wherever possible. Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
• PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

• INTROS -- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater), I will drop you -- yes this is hypocritical if you know me irl, I don't care.
• PADS -- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but won't drop you for using one.

WSD:
I come mostly from a Congress background, so I weigh speaking and style more heavily than other judges. However, that almost exclusively goes for speaking points and spreading won't impact which side wins the debate in my view.

I'm usually okay if you speak a little fast, but I need to be able to flow and if I can't understand you, I can't do that and it won't help you (plus your speaks will be pretty bad).

Other than that, content comes first. Make compelling arguments and give strong mechs for them. Examples of your mechs are preferred but not required. Impacting means a lot so do that well too-- a strong impact will win you the round if done well.

Some quick things that will get you ranked higher / make you do better:

• POIs -- I will drop your team if you constantly deny POIs or don't give them.
• SIGNPOST -- Trust me, it helps a lot.
• CLASH -- Please use clash-style refutation in The 3 and a little in The Reply. Use whatever Refutations you want in The 1/2.
• PRINICIPLE -- I love a good principle argument, but if it isn't done well then I'll typically take the practical instead. Analogies are key.
• RHETORIC -- Rhetorical analysis is too often missed out on in WSD, if you give good rhetoric (including a solid intro/outro) I will immediately pick you up for speaks.

Generally speaking, the easiest/fastest path to the ballot is the one I'm going to take, so make it obvious why I should pick your side.

WSDC Experience

IA and equity officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, Equity Officer HKDO 2021, Equity Officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, IA breaking judge DADC 2022(Debate Association Singapura Debating Championship) IA breaking judge 12th Hong Kong Debate Open 2021, breaking WHO 2021, IA Europen 2021 breaking judge, IA on Hong Kong Senior SDC 2021 broke to finals, IA on Asia Pacific 2021 broke to finals, Accepted as a judge on Macau WSDC 2021, Trainer and judge on WSDA Kranjska Gora 2021

Oxford WSDC 2021, Argo Open 2021 broke as IA, Online Dutch Debating Schools Championship 2021 broke to semis as IA, broke as IA to finals on Oldham Asian-Pacific league 2021, broke to finals as IA, judged Oldham international league 2021 as IA, broke as a IA to semifinals at Prague Debate Spring 2021,Winter Holidays Open broke as a judge every year attending- 2013-2020: judge finals 4 times, on Prague Debate Spring 2019 and 2014 broke as a judge, on Bratislava Schools Debating Championship broke as a judge 2017, on NSDC In Kopenhagen broke as a judge In 2018. Member of Council of methodology In CDS- creating materials for judges and judges workshops , actively judging regional and national tournaments In Croatia since 2012 and graduation. Judged WSDC Croatia all preliminary rounds in 2018

Active member of Council of methodology in Croatian debate society since 2016, actively coaching debate club Busmani/II.gymnasium since 2012, judging all national and regional tournaments since 2012, judge mentor since 2015, coordinator of judges workshops for all judges in Croatian debate society, and a member of team that is working on debate materials for IDEA NL.

Coach of debate club Bušmani s in 2nd Gymnasium, Zagreb since 2012. members from club every year since 2012 have at least one debater on WSDC Croatia team

I have a lot of experience in WSDC [and BP] debating both as a speaker and as an adjudicator. I have been judging debates for close to 2 full years now. Once a [Zimbabwe] national team speaker myself I understand the dynamics and technicalities that go into awarding a win/loss in a debate round as an adjudicator. I slam well versed with the both the WSDC and WUDC speaking and judging manuals.

Hello there, everyone!

My name is AmandaLesly Miranda, and I am a debater from Wildwood, Florida. I am a debate alum, three-time Nationals Qualifier for World School Debate, and I do mostly debate events. I want to ensure that my judgment is good enough for you and that your expectations are met and hopefully exceeded. There is no need for a debater to be worried about who their judge is and what their qualifications are, so hopefully these qualifications are good enough for you.

For my judging, I always like to go based on the rules, but I will also add my personal opinion. My opinion does not affect your score unless there is a tie, and then I will consult myself to see which one I liked more and which I felt met the standards in a better way, however, I have yet to encounter a tie. If there are any discrepancies with my judgment, I always want to improve, and I will happily take feedback.

For clarification, I wanted to specify what I look for in rounds. For any event, regardless if it's a debate or speech event, I look for appeal during your speech. Whether it's appealing to your judges, audience, or competitor, or appealing to the story that you're saying, you want to keep everyone engaged during your performance.

When it comes to interpretation events, I like to see the fluidness of your speech. Of course, you may stumble or stutter, and I personally don't judge too harshly for this unless it's excessive. But, memorization of the speech, long pauses during its delivery, etc. will definitely affect your score in my eyes. I'm also looking heavily at its delivery, such as speaking tone, speed, and interaction. For me, eye contact is a huge portion, as it gives you a connection to your audience, but I would definitely let it slide if eye contacttechnicallydoesn't fit into your piece. Other than that, I stick with the other general rules given by the NSDA.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, concerns, or anything else about my judging, there are two ways to reach me: Skimmy425@gmail.com (Primary email) and Mandawritesall@gmail.com (Work/Secondary email).

Thank you, and good luck!

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!

Aye I’m a a highschool PARLI debater and have had a long career in debate last highschool no one likes a long paradigm so here

I lean more into traditional debate but am also in interaction with tech

I will only accept Ks as tech everything else just in the garbage can and I do advocate for negation to use Ks if the debate is already heavily skewed

All constructive arguments should be placed in my flow by first speeches

do not spread

if new arguments are brought up in neg block I’ll let Aff respond in their last speech

finally you need to weigh to win so use a mechanism which allows u to weigh the debate

impact debate or link debate to topic if you don’t u cannot win

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience 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: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do 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.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will. 

I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)

Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards. 

have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)

I don't appreciate (but will not dock) off-time road maps, kritiks, theory, and jargon.

My students have had a 100% success rate into entering USA Debate (currently occupying 3 of 31 spots). I used to travel around the world debating and winning (back when tournaments were only in-person). I am a coach at AlannahDebates.Com . I have judged finals for multiple tournaments. I would prefer it if you treated me like a lay judge.

WORLD SCHOOLS JUDGING

https://www.debating.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/NZ-Schools-Debating-How-to-Judge-Guide.pdf

PARLIAMENTARY JUDGING

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/judging.html

If you are going to go Max Verstappen, I can effectively flow up to 350 WPM.

INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER SCORE

Content (40%): Depends on how many lines of flow I make for your speech. I don't flow any ineffective points.

Style (40%): Besides the linked WSD guide's description, I enjoy non-equity-violation jabs and jokes. Eg. saying your opponent's argument is as clear as your future is okay, saying your opponent's skin is as clear as your future is bad!

Strat (20%): Primarily how well you time/portion yourself. Any strategic actions such as consistent/effective POIs, not contradicting your teammate, strong framework, consideration to burden.