I come to the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.

good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

Most Recently Updated July 13 2024

Berkeley Carroll '26

Yes, add me to the email chain: hilariousperalta@gmail.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- i do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

- have a good debate! have a good performance! dont make me bored!!

-most importantly have fun!!!

- put me on the email chain. set up the email chain even if i'm not in the room yet. email chain >>> speech drop unless there’s an issue with school emails or wifi.

- yes, speed is fine

- i will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. i will not disclose specific speaker points.

- i flow on paper, so give me pen time and slow down for analytics.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For all formats (PF/LD)

I vote off the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it.

tech>truth

fine w/ speed

Quick Prefs:

1 - POMO K's/Identity K's

2 - Theory

2 - K Affs/ Non t K's

3 - Larp

3 - Trix (real tricks not unwarranted BS)

4 - Phil

5 - Trad(strike)

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain.The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence.Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

- stealing prep is bad. i will dock speaker points if i catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. taking the time to take out analytics/to make a send doc is using prep. time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

- i flow on paper and flow each advantage and off case position on separate sheets of paper. give me pen time to flip pages between sheets. slow down on analytics. when you give an offtime roadmap, give me time to flip between my sheets.

- i flow based on what I hear. i will follow along with a doc to check for clipping BUT i will not flow off the doc, i will be listening to you, not flowing off a doc

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Evidence Exchange:

- email chains >>> speech drop (same as above)

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: if i catch someone clipping cards depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round.

- for PF: paraphrasing is bad. actually formatted cards are good.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclo Thoughts:

- disclosure is good, stop lying to urself

- must disclose the 1AC 30 min before the round to opps

- dont rlly like disclo theory rounds, find them pretty boring

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speed:

-yes im fine with speed, but slow down for tags, analytics and authors

- clarity > speed

- will only yell "clear" twice then i stop flowing

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cross-ex

- yes, cross is binding

- no, i dont flow cross (ick)

- bring up stuff said in cross if you want it to be on the flow

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

framework:

- dont just read fw for the hell of it, actually use it to garner offense

- when responding to opps fw, dont just spam blocks from ur friends backfiles from camp, actually apply ur responses to the aff

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case:

- will presume neg if theres 0 offense in the round, lowk will listen to presume aff args tho

- if ur completely wiping the other team and there's no path to the ballot for them, call for a T.K.O, and if i agree that theres no path to the ballot i will give y'all the W 30 speaks. However, if i disagree it will be an L with lowest amt of speaks possible

- for PF Specifically, NO DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY THIS ISNT THE VIRGINIA LOCAL CIRCUIT (no hate to Virginia)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topicality:

- lowk more teams should read it (especially in PF, and im talking abt REAL T-shells, none of this "Db8ers should defend the resolution????????" interp without any definitions, give me definitions )

- i default to competing interps, no rvis

- just cuz the above stated is true doesnt mean i wont listen to reasonability, i will listen to those arguments if they're made

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks!!!:

- my main experience with k's are reading them in PF and LD (queerpess and Baudrillard)

- the lit im most familiar with are the following (queerpess, baudrillard, set-col, fem, Kant, Hegel,Psychoanalysis)

- most of my experience watching/flowing k's are from watching College Policy (NDT/CEDA)

- FOR PF SPECIFICALLY, what the above means is that my standards for what is a K are higher than the average understanding of k's in PF

- if ur gonna read a k, first of all KNOW YOUR LIT. dont just read stuff you stole off of the wiki without actually knowing wtf ur reading

- have a genuine alt with cards, dont just read a 2 sentence blippy alt

- have a good alt pls, don't just read "reject the aff" alts

- in a K v Policy round weigh the K against the plan

- im not gonna fill in the gaps for you, especially if its some high lit stuff that im not familiar with. also dont excessively rely on ur k specific jargon and expect me to understand

- personally i prefer if u link the k to the consequences of the aff, but if ur gonna be non topical just frontline well and u shld be fine

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DA (LD Specific):

- dont just spam cards, tell me how the DA interacts with the aff

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Theory:

- i believe condo good, although my threshold for condo bad isnt very high. however, i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped or if its srsly unresponded to

- read warrants on RVI's, dont just throw them out there

- i believe paraphrasing bad, disclosure good, however will listen to args that say otherwise, although i have a high threshold

- dont spread through pre written blocks, again, GIVE ME PEN TIME I FLOW ON PAPER AND USE MULTIPLE SHEETS OF PAPER SO GIVE ME TIME TO WRITE DOWN THE ANALYTICS

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speaker points + buffs:

-i start with 28.5 and go up and down from there depending on ur performance.

+.5 speaks if you make a playboi carti reference

+.5 speaks if you make me laugh

+1 speaks if you stand up and shout "WORLD STAR" if ur partner says something funny during cross, BEWARE you will lose speaks if i dont find it funny

Auto 30 Speaks if you:

- if you give ur rebuttal entirely off the flow and purely analytics **not for online tourneys, cant know if ur cheating :( **

- bring me an energy drink

- follow me on Instagram (hiratio.p_123)

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