LD & CX @ Bentonville High School '27

henryakins08@gmail.com

Top stack:
- Respect is extremely important. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. will result in an immediate loss, with the lowest speaks possible.
- I'm a blank slate, or "tabula rasa" as it is called in Latin. While it is hard sometimes to put aside my opinions, I am willing to vote on practically anything.
- Line-by-line is essential for me. If I can't flow the arguments, I can't evaluate them.
- Some judges hate spreading, I don't mind it though. With this in mind, still be clear and please don't go too fast on the analytics.

Tricks:
- I am a believer of the idea that debate is a game. But at the same time, I am extremely aware of the education that debate brings, which is one of the main reasons that I love it. Tricks are kind of the antithesis of how I see debate - but I am still willing to vote on them. With that in mind, please refer to my stance on line-by-line. Flowability is extremely important, so if I can't catch the argument, then it may as well just have not been argued. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Answer them. Simple as that.

Theory:
- For theory referring to the case level of the AC, I would say that 99% of theory in that ballpark is not a reason to reject the team.
- For things like disclosure and whatnot, that could be interpreted as a reason to reject the team.
- As long as I can flow the theory and understand it, there is a high chance that I could vote on it. Do with that information what you will.

Speaks:
- Summed up here.
- Some people will have weird systems for how they hand out speaks. For me, I will just think about things like clarity, line-by-line, etc.

Traditional:
- Read this understanding that I am a more "progressive" debater, in the sense that I don't use the Value/Value-Criterion model when debating. However, I still understand the importance that this has to traditional debate so when judging those rounds, I will weigh the case on the framework provided.
- With that said, if it is a round between a more "progressive" debater going up against a traditional debater, I will probably not base the round based off of framework, but rather on the flow of the round and who generally makes the better arguments. Basically, just who the better debater is. (which is what debate is about) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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!

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

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.