Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '25

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes. VP of the University of Houston policy debate team, 2x NDT qualifier.

If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

NSDA PF UPDATE:

1) please add sevenlakespf [at] googlegroups [dot] com to the chain.

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (NEG)" or something similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) pre-flowing is pre-round prep. if you're pre-flowing during round start time, you should be taking prep for that.

NSDA CX UPDATE:

1) please add ixdebate [at] gmail [dot] com and sevenlakespolicy [at] googlegroups [dot] com

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (Neg)" or somethign similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) the tldr is you do you, i'll flow and adapt to your arguments

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Note!!!

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.

Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- 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.

- feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate (Policy, LD, PF):

if you’re WSD, you don’t have to read this section and can scroll below for the WSD section.

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

- 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.

- debate is for debaters! you do you and i will adapt accordingly! i'll vote on almost any arg. specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. offense over defense.

- yes, spreading is okay with me. yes, i’m okay to read ks in front of. no, i don’t care how you look or if you stand or sit, etc. just feel comfortable while you’re debating!

- probably not going to vote on condo bad.

- "nine" > "judge”

- 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. you can ask to take pictures of my flows after the round! yes, you can email me with questions later too.

doing prefs? here’s what i’m good for and what args i’m most familiar with. (you should still read the rest of the paradigm though):

- i'm good for both policy and k arguments. i coach both policy and K arguments, and will be good for a policy v policy, K v policy, and K v K throwdowns.

- i’m less good for high theory, phil, and tricks/blippy theory. but, if they are read in front of me, i will evaluate them as best as i can, and i am likely looking for clarity/explanation of the argument and an impact to vote on. burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. if i can’t explain your theory/shell/k/argument back to you, i won’t vote on it.

- i’m probably a better judge for policy thank you think–-i spent my first few years thinking about, going for, and getting to the NDT with topicality, DAs, CPs, and the cap K (which i went for like a DA/CP). technical policy debate still largely informs my decisions. i haven't completely removed myself from learning policy arguments (still coaching policy arguments and going for them occasionally) but i might be out of the loop of specific topic DAs or CPs, which means you might need to spend 10 seconds more explaining what the argument is.

- recently pivoted to K debate and now spend time thinking about various strands of setcol, cap, quare/trans/queer theory, black fem, and performance debate.

want more explanation? here’s the longer version (in no particular order):

i can not express this enough: debate is for debaters. i will adapt to your debating style accordingly. you do you! i will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. most importantly, have fun :-) !

- tech >>> truth. exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. everything else is fair game.

- 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 order, 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. that means that you should be clear when spreading, you should not flow off the doc, and i will flow tags/analytics that are not on the doc as long as they are said aloud by the debater.

email chains/evidence:

- email chains >>> speech drop. add me to the email chain. please make an email chain before i’m in the room–i want to start on time. speech drop is fine if there are school email issues or if there are wifi issues, otherwise, please use an email chain.

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: i will give a warning 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. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (ex: UIL tournaments)

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

disclosure:

- this section is mostly for ld/pf: disclosure is good.

- personally, i think disclosure as soon as you get pairings/when you know who you’re hitting next is good. but i understand the ld/pf (?) standard of 30 minutes before the round.

- i’m very amenable to not putting things on the wiki for safety reasons.

- i will be slightly annoyed if i have to judge a disclosure debate unless the other team outright did not disclose anything. that being said, i will still flow a disclosure debate and will still default to my flow.

speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed but slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you or if you are unintelligible. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i have minor hearing damage in both ears and it flares up once in a while, usually in my left ear. i will let you know beforehand if i'm having a flare up and if you need to be extra clear or position yourself to the right of me. i will say “loud” if you need to be louder.

cross-examination:

- i will take notes on CX on a separate sheet of paper sometimes. but, if you want the answers from CX to be applied to your speech, you need to say it in a speech!

- CX is so under-utilized. debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. (i.e., not spending the entire time on clarification questions, not doing flow check questions with the exception of status/reasons to reject housekeeping questions) how do you give a good CX?: matt liu's cross examination lecture

framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks is unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- TVAs are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i like fairness if you’ve implicated it to case/the method.

case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you what the aff does by the end of the round.

- for PF: defense is not sticky.

topicality:

- more teams should read it!

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff. but, don't miss the forest for the trees–you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps, can be changed in round

- will vote on reasonability if a reasonability arg is made, but this can be changed in-round.

K:

- yes, read the K if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

- Ks with links to the consequences of the plan are the most intuitive links to me. but don't let that deter you from going for links to reps or similar non-consequence based arguments

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. i don't have opinions on specific DAs, read whatever you like.

- i will look for a clear link first then evaluate the impacts. link/DA turns case is always nice

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of CP. go ahead and read any flavor of CP you like, even if they’re “cheaty”.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage CPs are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the theory section).

- i default to judge kick. but, this can be reversed in-round as long as there’s ink on my flow for it.

theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- RVIs are silly to me, especially when they're just thrown out without a warrant.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K affs:

- i like the education/real-world implications of K affs. i really like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured K affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. K affs that engage with K aff's theory of power (which can also include framework!), and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

speaker points:

- (updated to match reigner's speaker point scale): i start at around 28.8 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on the tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, i will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

World Schools:

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

– yes, i know the format. i primarily did WSD in high school and used to primarily coach WSD.

– i flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. i would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– i value organized speeches!!! messy speeches = sad nine = sad ballot. ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) enumerate your responses, 2) signpost your arguments, and 3) condense into clash.

– i would much rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. please have offense. i want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

want more explanation? here’s the longer version:

– format: follow it. that means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (i start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 pois, etc. that also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). you’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in wsd, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– explain and characterize! the best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– strategy and style are important! i value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed pois, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. but don’t sacrifice style for content. i'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. the best strategic choices debaters can make in wsd is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments i should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. the best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. ex: if there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion i have of fiat. or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. i expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. i'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– replies: the replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. tell me what i should be writing down in my ballot. tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– ideological lean: just because i do policy debate does not mean i lean towards policy style arguments. i truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. seriously, you do you. i'll vote on any kind of argument.

– principle debates: if it becomes a practical v. principle debate, i'm expecting a lot of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. i'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). for instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). if you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. i love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– model debates: both models and countermodels need to be characterized. teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where i usually see prop fail). opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model and why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). i think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

if the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, i will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speech/interp:

a speech/interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. but i guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

you do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

for extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). i prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, i still take presentation seriously. i don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

for oo/info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

for interp, i'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

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 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.

i'm sticking to a 10 second synopsis of my thoughts because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing a whole paragraph:

policy:

email: mirab2508@gmail.com

pf:

- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary

- don't just read 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.

- be nice pls

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

I have mostly Worlds School experience, as well as congress, impromptu and extemp.

WSD:

• Good clash, structure, framework
• I really like a well developed principled argument, especially when it’s cleanly carried out.
• Weigh your arguments
• No rehashing, if you do I will not be listening.
• Strategic POIs are appreciated

Congress:

• Add to the debate, rehashing arguments will be counted against you
• Do not just give me rhetoric, provide analysis and weighing
• Good strategy is appreciated

Extemp:

• Have good structure and time utilization
• I like good and well developed content, in-depth analysis is appreciated
• Be creative with your speech

Have fun & be kind :)

if you need my email: irenemjohn@gmail.com, any questions message me on instagram @iireniie

(yes, add me to the email chain, no speechdrop)

Hi, my name is Irene! I debate World Schools for Elkins. I'm a junior and have been in the speech and debate space for three years! My pronouns are she/her.

I will not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. Please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities.

Background

WSD's been my main event ever since I was a freshman. I've competed in Extemp as well.

General Notes (scroll down if I'm your judge for PF or LD)

WSD:

Hey! I've been doing Worlds for a while, and I absolutely love this event. With that in mind, know that I will judge a little stricter because I actively compete in these events, but here's what I think:

Debate is a game. Especially in World Schools, where you get to build your own world, manipulate how things look for your stakeholders, solve key issues (or even make them.) It's all about being strategic and characterizing your side properly, as well as EXPLAINING why is is better than the other world, all while utilizing your speaking skills.

I believe that Worlds is all about persuasion, in three ways: style, content, and strategy. This means making eye contact, sounding animated, not spreading, taking and answering POIs, as well as creating interesting substantives and bringing offense/defense down the bench. ALL three speakers must be involved in argumentation- it should not be the first speaker carrying the case so the second and third can just do defense.

Style: I love good speakers, and interesting hooks. Feel free to include humor as long as it doesn't distract/isn't related or prevent rebounding. I like giving high speaks, make sure to sound persuasive and include organization, intonation, emphasis, etc. I’m good with speed, but make sure not to spread rapidly to where there are clear fluency issues.

Content: I value both the principle and practical, and I know what motions are which. This means if you're trying to be abusive with your models or not define the motion correctly, I will know. Characterize your case well. Create well-crafted arguments that include plenty of analysis. I always mention this when I judge/teach- you do not need a third substantive if you feel like it won't strengthen your case. I will not dock you, because I understand that the lack of a third sub helps for more substantial refutation.

I’m tech > truth unless it’s completely ludicrous (ex: hate crimes do not exist, believe me, I’ve heard that one before) and am clean slate- I will buy arguments based on what I hear in round and not prior knowledge, except if you are reading a homophobic, sexist or discriminatory argument (automatic L and docked speaks). Do not try to bring up things from other events (ex: ask for cards, evidence ethics, etc), and if you’re using fiat, please make sure you know what you’re doing.

Strategy wise- bring the best arguments down on the bench, call out inconsistencies in POIs and speeches, and explain why you win (write my ballot for me!). POIs are a very important part of strategy, however, if you decide to abuse the limits of POIs, or be abusive in any way, I will not hesitate to call you out in round and dock points. I also want to see strategic use of your time, and not just repetition- every speech should help solidify my vote for your team. What I mean by strategic clash is this: for example, if you're on Opp, your 3 and 4 should not be reiteration. Use the 16 minute block wisely and give me voters in your reply, rather than doing an overall summary of your case that is more suited for the 3 to do.

Personally, I think World Schools should stay World Schools- it's an interesting form of debate that does not rely on spreading or throwing out a dozen arguments so one will stick. Do not debate on technicality- WSD is about the big picture. This isn't PF, Policy, or LD- you must debate why your arguments win on an overall level and which world is better.

I'm a 2nd/4th speaker, so I pay special attention to your rebuttals, what arguments you carry down the bench, and how you break down the round. On the note of reply speeches- I don't think reply speeches should be filled with rebuttal to the opposing 3/4- rather, I think the main focus should be WHY you win the debate (aka voting issues). As a judge, I should be referred to. I should be asked what world I buy, what world I would rather live in/agree with, etc. If you choose to make new arguments in reply that are not on my flow, I will dock your points and you will be called out for this abusive mindset.

COMPARATIVE, so many people forget this, this should start in the Opp 1 and Prop/Opp 2, continuing through the round. Your reply should include comparative. Weigh the worlds. Again, please weigh, World Schoolers often forget that their arguments need impact weighing as well as comparative. If weighing does not at MOST start in the 3rd speeches, I will not consider it valid.

Comparative weighing = easiest way to win my ballot! You don't have to use explicit weighing mechanisms, but I should know on what grounds you're weighing on.

Finally- persuasion, as mentioned before, is very important to me. At the end of the day, I will likely vote for the person who convinced me the most, even if some of the opponent's arguments slipped through undefended. This is critical in Worlds as dropped arguments don't hurt you as much- whatever both sides clashed on is what matters most.

Public Forum and LD

I've judged PF and LD (usually novice) and what I'm finding is that too often speeches are all defense, with no offensive arguments made. While not much offense is necessary in the first rebuttal, I need to see it in second rebuttal and onwards. Speeches are NOT all rebuttals- there's been multiple times where teams say their first constructive and then everything else (rebuttal, summary, final focus) is just responding to the other's side arguments, not weighing, and no evidence clash.

Please include roadmaps for your speeches after the first constructive. A simple "First I will go over the opponent's case, refute their arguments, and expand upon our contentions" will suffice. Otherwise when I flow, I'm not aware of what exactly I should start off with. Again, please include evidence and real clash, or else I as the judge am forced to intervene and make my own conclusions.

I need, I repeat, NEED warranting. What a lot of debaters do (in any event) is jump from A to Z with no B and C. For example, if your argument is about universal healthcare, don’t try to jump from A to Z and say your impact is “nuclear war.” Fully flesh out your arguments and at least try to make your logic reasonable so I have a clear place to vote.

FOR PF: Weigh in third summary and extend in final focus: weighing should be impactful AND comparative. You need impact calculus, and this is not a simple “we outweigh on magnitude” rather you must explain WHY, or I will not consider it valid. I will not consider weighs in final focus, even if it's the only weighing in round.

FOR LD: Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

While PF and LD tend to be about technicality, using "we had more sources" isn't necessarily a valid argument. However, if you say "empirically, we prove that our arguments/impacts are valid because of "XYZ" evidence" I will buy that.

Style-wise, I don't like having to listen to monotone cases. Please, PLEASE, don't read off of the laptop entirely. Interact with me as a judge. I will give you an auto 30 if you read your cases off of paper.

Also, for PF: grand cross in my opinion is a waste of time and I'm fine with skipping it for a minute of prep. I will ask you before round begins, please don't say "I want the extra minute of prep" after 3rd summary because then it's completely focused on final focus, and that's like... a 2 minute speech.

If I'm judging you for speech events or interp!

Hello there! I love speech and interp and I'm super impressed by the amount of time and dedication it takes to perfect your pieces. I do Extemp sometimes; thus, the way I judge will be influenced by it. In extemp, I expect you to have AGD, intro, 3 main points, conclusion- but if your format is something totally different, as long as it has clear substance, I will evaluate it. Please at least give me 2-3 sources. Impromptu is fun- interpret your topic any way you like and make it a good, structured speech. For interp- do what you do best!

Extra Notes for Events

I will give higher speaks for interesting hooks, making me laugh, and overall making it an interesting debate. I’m a fan of intense debate rounds like any other judge but I don’t want to hear borderline screaming for hours.

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions, please email me at irenemjohn@gmail.com!

Hi, y'all!

I'm currently a junior at Mount Vernon High School in Washington state! I've competed very frequently in speech & debate since middle school, and my mom is the coach of our team. My pronouns are he/they and my email is taitekirkpatrick@gmail.com ! Feel free to reach out if you need help or have any questions at all, debate is my favorite thing to do, my favorite thing to talk about, and probably my favorite thing ever! (Therefore, debaters are my favorite people!!)

Debate-wise, I've been competitive in policy, lincoln douglas, and congressional debate. I also do Worlds Schools debate and am a member of the 2023/2024 USA Debate team. I'm also a member of the NSDA's Student Leadership Council! For IEs, I typically compete in impromptu and extemp-- this year, I also did oratory! I was State Champion in Washington in LD and Impromptu in 2024, and I'll be in Des Moines for Nationals in World Schools representing the Puget Sound!

If I'm judging you, you're definitely a younger debater (because I am 17) so here are just 3 things I hope to see in any round (of speech or debate!) --

1. Creativity! I love it when debaters do their own research, go with arguments they believe in, and take risks! If you're passionate about something, you'll probably be infinitely more persuasive and I'll love that! Don't run things just because somebody else handed you a file... try to write your own cases and develop your own understanding! It's harder, but worth it, I promise.
2. Refutation! Nothing makes a debate round less debate-y than when the debaters are 'two ships passing in the night'- try to engage with what your opponents are saying! Believe me, saying something, even if it's not the best argument or going to win you the debate, is almost always better than saying nothing! You have to start somewhere, and I'll give you higher speaker points when I can tell you heard/understood an opponents argument (even if you struggle on answering it).
3. Have fun! I've talked to SO many younger debaters (from my team and others!) who always feel so bad after rounds and are SO harsh on themselves. I promise- everybody's had a bad round before and no single round is reflective of you as a competitor, and no single round will influence your future as a welcomed member of the community! So many of you are smarter than you think, and I've never watched a single speech where I haven't been astonished by the potential I've seen! Frankly... the worst rounds are those were people are so nervous they slip up. We have a motto on my team for this: "Fake it 'til you make it!"

* I have also learned I love organization <3 ! Numbering your arguments, signposting (saying when you're moving from one point to another), etc. ! I like having neat and clean flows at the end of the day! *

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!

For all events: Please speak clearly and at a moderate speed, if I cant hear or understand argument or point you make it may not be taken into consideration.

DEBATE

For these debate events I would prefer if arguments were made in a cohesive way so I can clearly understand. Additionally, since I am a lay judge I would NOT recommend any progressive arguments or complex strategies since I am not familiar with those. While I may be keeping time, I would prefer if competitors timed themselves.

WSD: Style is very important in this event so I will consider it when making my decision, try to be clear when you speak and stay away from being overly aggressive during speeches. Given that this is an event based on logic, please try to make arguments that are easy to understand for me as the judge.

PF/LD:Arguments should again be clear to understand for me as the judge. Please refrain from spreading or speaking too fast.

SPEECH

I enjoy humor in speeches, but not on very sensitive topics. It is important that you have good speaking style and are confident and clear throughout your speech. Speech should be memorized completely as well without many fluency breaks for a good rank.

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.

My experiences in Public Forum and Congressional debating may not be wide enough, I do possess a wide variety of experiences in British Parliamentary and World Schools debate styles that has provided me with skills in discernment and of course, listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF and congress styles. Below are some of my criteria for judging in terms of my expectation for speakers during rounds;

- 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 Debate while 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 and flow: 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.

My experiences in Public Forum and Congressional debating may not be wide enough, I do possess a wide variety of experiences in British Parliamentary and World Schools debate styles that has provided me with skills in discernment and of course, listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF and congress styles. Below are some of my criteria for judging in terms of my expectation for speakers during rounds;

- 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 Debate while 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 and flow: 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.

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

World Schools:

1- To me, Worlds is all about your ability to characterize and explain what is likely to be true. Examples are useful, but they need robust warranting behind them. The quality of your arguments matter a lot.

2- Be comparative! Don't just explain why your world is good, but why it's comparatively better than your opponents'.

3- The third and reply speeches should crystallize the debate into a few central clashes. Make sure to weigh between clashes as well as between opposing mechanisms within the same clash.

4- Principled arguments are really cool, but make sure to explain why your principle comes before consequences.

5- Content and strategy matter more to me than style. Style is important, but improvements in style quickly become less and less important after a certain threshold is reached (you're understandable, speaking at a moderate pace, and not reading from your paper).

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!