Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

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.

Greetings,

I'm Shashi, and qualified for judging various debate formats including the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

My Approach to Judging:

I approach each debate with a global perspective, setting aside any personal biases to ensure a fair evaluation. To sway me in a debate, your arguments must be both credible and persuasive within the context of the discussion. Here are some key aspects of my judging approach:

• Clearly articulate your arguments and support them with a thorough analysis.
• Foster fair engagement with your opponents by challenging their arguments and offering comparisons to demonstrate superiority.
• Organize your arguments in a coherent structure, avoiding abrupt transitions.
• Fulfill your role effectively within the debate.
• For Speech Events, demonstrate creativity and utilize all available resources to deliver your presentation effectively, including eye contact, body language, energy, and expression.

Additional Points:

• While I slightly prefer medium-paced speeches, I evaluate all speeches based on merit regardless of speed. However, taking deep breaths can enhance clarity and coherence.
• I value respectful and cooperative interactions among competitors and discourage rude, hostile, or intolerant behaviour.

When you encounter me as a judge, expect fair and thorough evaluation along with constructive feedback aimed at supporting your growth as a speaker.

- 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."

I evaluate debaters based on the quality of their arguments, delivery, and overall persuasiveness. Some of the things that i prioritize the most are:

-

• Substance: Strong cases with clear warrants, well-defined impacts, and sound evidence (facts, statistics, expert opinions) are key.
• Style: Clear, concise, and engaging delivery is important. Effective use of rebuttals and logical flow of arguments are valued.
• Evidence: Credible and relevant evidence from reputable sources is preferred. While emotional appeals can be used, they should be supported by logic and evidence.
• Speak clearly, i don't mind if you speed as long as you are being clear on what are you saying. If I can’t get your arguments down and understand what are you saying then you will have an issue at the moment of convincing me about your case.

Alicia Cook

hi there!!

My name is Alicia Cook and I am a college sophomore with 4+ years of speech and debate experience! I primarily have experience with World Schools Debate but have also competed in Public Forum and Parliamentary Debates. I have the most judging experience within World Schools, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and speech events.

WSD:

I judge primarily focusing on the respect that you have for your opponent above all else. Insults and rude commentary reflect poorly. I believe weighing such impacts and points is crucial in a debate. I also prefer a slow, more concise speaking tone compared to "speedy speaking".

1. Presented clear impacts, analysis, and mention of voters are needed when delivering arguments as this is what I look for as a priority.
2. Personally, POIs can come in clarification or question form, either is fine. Please wait the allotted time between POIs to prevent distractions and allow for a clear speech and elaboration. No speaker wants to be flooded with POIs within their speech.
3. The organization is key within a debate and in each speech. Simply stating such actions will allow for an easier ballot to be made on my side.
4. I will weigh your content on validity, reliability, and strength. Poor evidence will result in poor content scores, regardless of whether or not your opponents expose these flaws.
5. I expect the Proposition team to offer a burden and lay the ground for the round. This ground is to be based on the general understanding of the debate. As well, I expect the Opposition to reply to the Proposition's burden, even if they decide to attempt to re-establish the ground.

Speech:

1. As a judge, my primary goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to each competitor. I truly value performances that not only adhere to the rules and format of the event but also display creativity, clarity, and engagement.
2. I judge on 4 core principles during the round. (Content, Delivery and Presentation, Compliance to event structure, and engagement/impact.

Thank you for your participation and dedication to speech and debate!! I look forward to experiencing your performances!

Q's?- cookali49@gmail.com

I'm Oluwatise Deborah, a judge, and speaker, who loves debates and has been doing this for 2 years now

As a judge, I would love for the rounds are flow, show me the evidence that you should be voted for with your clear speech and great conviction of the contentions, concerning opponent with utmost respect is required, I have no issue with the critical form of debating, speed, jargon, be loud, and also xpressive

I'm ok with fast speech along with counter plans as well.

Plan focus form of debating is ok by me as well a Resolution debate is also welcome.

I vote for the side with the best policy during debates, I don't judge based only on fluency of words but with the best policy even if their isn't much fluency your policy could save the world

Howdy folks. I hope that today is going awesome for you. I did debate for 4 years in high school, and I'm glad to be able to judge. Here are the things that you need to know.

1. Make good arguments (unique advice, I know). In all honesty though, if you want me to vote for your side, be sure to provide strong links between your evidence and arguments. Don't let your evidence stand alone. Warrant your evidence. Explain why your side produces the most positive impacts.
2. Be respectful. Though I don't typically decide rounds based off of etiquette, I will dock speaker points if you are rude. This includes constantly interrupting your opponents, yelling, refusing to answer questions, being bigoted, or any other kind of disrespect. Keep things clean. Don't turn Cross-X into a yelling contest.
3. Make sure that I can understand you. I don't mind spreading, but please just be sure that you're coherent. I'm not voting on points that were spoken too fast for me to hear.
4. You can keep your own time, but my time is official. I will not flow arguments that are spoken overtime.

Public Forum:

1. I can judge a round without framework, but I really do prefer that you have one. If one side has a framework and the other side doesn't, I'm judging the round off of the side that has a framework.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. Keep the debate based on philosophy. Don't turn this into a mini policy round. I will be voting for whichever side makes better philosophical arguments.

Policy Debate:

1. Keep this debate based in reality. Don't rely too much on theory. I want realistic impacts. Keep things topical.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts. My email is dynamic.the.hero@gmail.com.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hi, there.

I'm Qareebat Ibrahim, a versatile debater, and adjudicator with vast experience in judging speeches and debate tournaments. This means 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 impactful to your judging pool.

Pronouns: She/her

Email: dedoyinibrahim@gmail.com

Personal conflicts: I do not have any.

Here are a few things to note:

-Debate is educational and inclusive as well as speeches, attack arguments not the person.

-You don't have to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speeches but not extremely fast ones.

-Help me get organized, I handwrite in the process of judging, I like roadmaps, it also helps me give specific feedback and actionable feedback. Also, paraphrasing evidence is alright, but make sure to explain its meaning and relevance.

-I understand you have a lot to say, be time-conscious.

-Read briefings and manuals for the tournament, I do the same.

-I give weight to arguments with good analysis and impact and my basic evaluation criteria are content, style, and strategy, and in debate, always fulfill your roles.

-I like civility. I respect speakers and I expect speakers to be respectful. I'll confirm your audibility and visibility.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge!

HEPHZIBAH IBUKUN

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at the University OF ILORIN studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

I'm a college student and did PF, Congress, Duo, and HI in high school; ranked top 20 in states, nationals, and TOC.

For debate: Even though I am an experienced judge, pretend I am a lay judge. Explain it to me like I'm a 5th grader. Super extra and convoluted arguments don't always win rounds. Extend your links and impacts and weigh your args!! Essentially, tell me why I should care and why I should care about your arg more than your opponents = roadmap to winning.

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Hello there

My name is Sofia, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, Big question and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• 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.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

She/her pronouns.

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that it can be more convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via blessingtejumoluwa@gmail.com

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

I come from a background entrenched in debate, where the art of persuasion and clarity reign supreme. Having once been a debater myself, I deeply value the importance of effective communication and logical reasoning in any discourse. My approach to discussions is rooted in the principle that understanding between opponents is paramount. Clarity in communication is not just a preference, but a necessity for fruitful exchange.

In my view, the hallmark of a compelling argument lies not only in the evidence presented but also in the manner in which it is articulated. While evidence serves as a pillar of support, it must be skillfully woven into the fabric of the argument to resonate convincingly. I advocate for the establishment of a robust foundation at the outset of any discussion, laying the groundwork upon which the edifice of the argument can stand firm.

Moreover, I hold a deep appreciation for the importance of evidence elucidation. Simply presenting evidence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by thorough explanation and analysis. This approach ensures that even those approaching the discussion with minimal prior knowledge can grasp the intricacies of the subject matter. Thus, I approach each round with the mindset of a novice, ready to absorb information and insights anew.

In our engagement, I aim to create an environment conducive to intellectual exploration and growth. By adhering to the principles of clarity, evidence substantiation, and thorough explanation, I endeavor to foster a dynamic and enriching exchange of ideas. Together, let us embark on a journey of discovery and enlightenment, where every round is an opportunity for learning and mutual understanding.

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.

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.

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

Hello,

I am Opoola Opeyemi. I am a seasoned debater and an experienced judge.

I am quite versatile and experienced in different forms of debating such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debating format (WSDC) , Public Forum debates (PF), Parliamentary Debates, Spar debates and so on.

As a judge, I proritize logic and sufficient analysis; how speakers are able to logically defend their side without missing any logical link and showing why their arguments win the debate.

I also pioritze Equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants, as I prioritize a safe and friendly atmosphere for debate.

I will very much appreciate if you don't rush with your speeches, however I will be willing to note whatsoever you give as arguments during the round.

Thank you!

Hello! I am a high school competitive debater that's been debating for two years.

I do flow the debate and would appreciate it if you please spoke CLEARLY and do NOT go too fast-- clarity>speed.

Feel free to be assertive during crossfire, but please be polite, especially during the grand cross.

Make sure to weigh your impacts, especially in the final focus.

I will vote for the team that convinces me their side is the right one!

Good luck!

Hi all! My name is Kajal Sagar and I'm a PF varsity competitor and judge living in the US!

I am very excited to judge Congress for the first time and am very interested in learning all about it, that being said, do not consider me as a lay judge, as I have done research into Congress and have a good handle on it.

Here's everything you need to do during this round: CONGRESS!!

• I don't think I need to say this but remain respectful and please don't be a jerk.

• I do flow - speak clearly, and preferably slowly - it allows for a more involved and persuasive debate, however speed does not matter.

• For online tournaments, please ensure you are without distractions, and you are audible, easy to understand, and that I can see you at all times.
• Give me a step by step logical explanation on your arguments, and don't leave gaps I'm expected to fill.
• Be engaging, add pauses or shift the tone of your voice to emphasize points, not only does it help me understand your argument better, but you become a better speaker!
• Ask questions and then please follow up with them in your speeches, if you find a major hole in your opponent's case during CrossX, yet it is never brought up in speeches, it could hurt your potential of getting a 6 on your speech.
• Overall, have fun and enjoy the experience!

FOR PUBLIC FORUM:

Hi! My name is Kajal Sagar and I'm a junior at Libertyville High School and a varsity debater/judge.

I basically know nothing about this particular resolution, so use it to your advantage. I am a blank slate - do with that what you will :)

Here's everything you need to know for the round:

• I don't think I need to say this but remain respectful and please don't be a jerk.

• I do flow - speak clearly, and preferably slowly - it allows for a more involved and persuasive debate, however speed does not matter.

• I take CrossX in account. If you find a major hole in your opponent's case during CrossX, yet it is never brought up in speeches, it could hurt your potential of winning the ballot.

• Please keep your own prep-time, but I will remind you if you've gone over.

• Emphasize your voter issues!!

• I like clear sign-posting and other areas where you can do the work for me - this could really help you!!

• The first card request is free per team, but afterwards it goes on prep-time.

• Any abusive frameworks will be ignored.

• Impact weighing is crucial - show me how your point is more important than theirs, what it could help, what it could change!

• I LOVE confidence, it shows me you know what you're talking about and that you are right. However, I HATE arrogance, and there's a fine line between the two, so be careful not to blur the two.

• Please don't say "Judge" after every sentence. I think it makes the both of us highly uncomfortable, BUT it works great when you sprinkle it in.

• Lastly, have fun, chill out, and remember at the end of the day, this is just a debate tournament.

( bonus 0.5 speaker points if you can work in any survivor references into any of your speeches )

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

Hey, I'm Lux (he/him/his). I'm a rising senior at Concord-Carlisle.

email: lsun25@concordcarlisle.org

First, any problematic language/behavior and not providing trigger warnings will get you reported to tab if need be. That includes stuff like suicide/self-harm, sexual assault, abuse, mental illness, and addiction.

GENERAL (debate):

1. Please write my ballot for me! That means weighing properly, extending, and warranting evidence and responses. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be pulled through the flow. If something important happens during cross, bring it up in a later speech.
2. tech > truth and tab rasa (i'll evaluate whats on my flow and only whats on my flow, regardless of my opinions/biases on the topic).
3. Progressive arguments (theory, ks, etc) are fine.
4. joke cases are fine if you clear it with your opponents BEFORE round.
5. my threshold for arguments is quite low. if you're running substance, you need a card for every step of your link chain. if you're running prog, it needs to make logical sense to an average human.
6. Please time yourselves. I'll stop flowing when your timer goes off.
7. I'll allow paraphrasing if it keeps the original spirit of the evidence. HOWEVER, if your opponent calls for the card(s), you need to be able to point to which parts you paraphrased.
8. I tend to give fairly high speaks unless there's a reason for me not to (i.e. bigotry and extreme rudeness)
9. Speed is fine up to ~240wpm, but be mindful of your opponents + send speech docs if your opponents ask
10. Please weigh!!! I cannot emphasize this enough.
11. Novices, you're doing great (and please know that we're all on your side here)

PF/BQ:

1. Please let your opponents get a word in during cross
2. 1st speakers: try to collapse in summary please
3. 2nd speakers: please, please, please weigh in ff
4. ninja edit: please do NOT run prog in BQ if you can avoid it

LD:

1. I started off in pf, which influences how I judge this event.
2. I have never competed in this event but have judged it enough to still be a flow judge

SPEECH:

if you are doing a partner event, please don't talk over your partner. otherwise, breathe and speak clearly (and try not to go over time if you can avoid it). also please keep in mind i don't judge too much speech (i do a lot more debate stuff)

sidenote: if you've read this far, thank you (and please let me know if you did!) if you need a mid-tournament laugh, please readAnthony Babu's paradigm

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

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.

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach 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, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@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. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

Be respectful and patient to others. Do not exhibit racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/discriminatory attitudes or behavior. You will be immediately dropped/moved.

I value content over performance especially in parliamentary/policy/public forum/Lincoln Douglas debate, performance will be weighed more importantly in Congress/IE events. I appreciate if the speech is well-organized and labeled, that will be really helpful for me to flow and drop-down notes. The logic link should be smooth and emphasized. Make sure all your arguments and refutations are related to the topic, it is good to elaborate or detail the topic, but discussing random stuff is not preferred. Under some specific topics, it is necessary for the debater to list out the impact and criteria for the round. Be familiar with your own speech and flow while your opponent brings up responses, debate without responding, and crediting other perspectives is not meaningful. It will also be better if I can tell the debater is prepared and ready. In some specific styles of debate, debaters are asked to identify some basic rules, for example, POI and POO in parliamentary debate. Please do not be rude to your opponents, aggressive personal style is acceptable. Please do not "cheat" when you are debating, including asking help from others, having extra prep time, etc.

For the performance, it is better if you are dressed professionally, but you will not be marked down for not doing so. Memorizing your speech might be important for IE events, and some style of debate, but it is okay to read what you have and emphasizing important parts. In some IE events, jokes and acting can be something I will be looking for. Fluency is also essential for me to flow and concentrate on your speech. Pronunciation and Enunciation should be as clear as you can, don't rush through just to be fast. Spreading can be asked in policy/Lincoln Douglas, etc, but be willing to share a copy with me just to help me flow with your arguments.