Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge 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.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@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. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc).

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Best of luck.

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.

Email: Drefitnessbiz@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.

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.