Hello, my name is Ayafa Tonye. 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) 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 consistently.

Also, I expect that everyone should read the judging and speaking manual of tournaments, to know what is expected of them, so that everyone can act accordingly.

This makes basic things like role fulfilment, making good arguments and having solid arguments to be easily achieved.

I also 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 simple, clear and well structured arguments. Speakers should be able to properly communicate the impact and relevance of their arguments and how that works.

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.

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

My judging is premised on 2 main things.

1) Argumentation

2) Responsive Work

1) Argumentation

The key thing here is twofold, a technical weigh up of the argument itself, and a truth litmus test. So first off, your argument needs to have the 3 core components of an argument, the claim, the grounding and analysis and finally the tie-back. Tell me what you want me to believe, show me why it is true and tell me it matters in the context of the debate we’re having. It’s not enough to just have a “true” argument, why does it matter, why should I care about it, and in what way does that argument, on its own, help you in your endeavour to win the debate. Then comes the truth test, is your analysis sound enough to stand in the debate, do you give me reason to believe that what you’re claiming is true and would the analysis convince an average intelligent voter. After all, it’s a game of conviction.

2) Responsive Work

Responses work two ways, they are offensive and defensive. Offensive responses juxtapose your arguments with your opponents’ and show why yours are more important, more relevant and basically warrant more weight in the debate. Does the argument, at the very least, respond to the burdens set upon either side by the motion itself, and the chats that happen during the debate? What’s the strategic importance of the argument to your opponent ,and what does their case look like without that one argument, why is it significantly weaker after your rebuttal.

The second part of responsive work is defensive, weighing up the responses. Why was your opponent’s rebuttal insufficient to deal with your case. And even if it was enough to respond, why is the loss of that one argument not enough to warrant you losing the entire debate?

Always be respectful to everyone in the room, be courteous and Remember that debate is supposed to be fun, enjoy and learn from the experience of debating with different people from different backgrounds

Experience

2 Years judging PF

4 Years judging BP

5 Years World Schools Style

Current Senior Coach for the Zimbabwe National Debate Team