Contact me : darkpoison007.ghost@gmail.com

conflict : NONE

Policy:

- I'm enthusiastic about impact turns as they often provide dynamic strategic options. I also appreciate the intricacies of politics Disadvantages (DA) and process Counterplans (CPs). I tend to favor debates with strong competition analysis and enjoy thorough discussions about 2NR evidence.

- Regarding theory debates, I lean towards the negative on issues like conditionality and most CP theory arguments. I find debates centered around competition to be particularly engaging.

- Please ensure to include re-highlighting. By default, I'm inclined to allow the judge to kick the CP, although a reminder from the 2NR is appreciated.

T/Theory:

- I default to reasonability, unless a compelling argument for competing interpretations is presented. I prioritize Depth-Then-Breadth (DTB) when possible, and my voting criteria typically prioritize fairness equaling education, with no Reverse Voting Issues (RVIs).

- While I generally avoid frivolous theory, I'm open to voting on these arguments if a clear interpretation is established. Concerning Nebel-style arguments, while not my preference, I acknowledge their necessity against small affs. However, rapid-fire, scripted plan arguments can be challenging to flow and may not leave a lasting impression.

- Disclosure is non-negotiable.

Kritiks:

- Personally, I'm not fond of Kritiks.

- Affirmatives should have the opportunity to weigh the case. Consequently, the 2AR should often prioritize framework and demonstrate why extinction outweighs.

- Kritiks become more viable if the 2NR proves extinction is inevitable, successfully link turns the case, or demonstrates a low risk of the advantage. However, new framework interpretations in the 2NR will be disregarded.

- Any Kritik claiming to link to the aff's rhetoric must directly reference lines from the 1AC evidence. "Threat inflation" style arguments won't hold weight without undermining the aff's internal links.

- Most alternative solutions are ineffective; if an alt claims to solve the case against a policy aff, it should lose to a theory argument. The affirmative should challenge this more frequently.

- Regarding Kritiks against philosophical affirmatives, winning seems improbable without disproving the aff's syllogism.

Non-T Affs:

- I firmly advocate for affirmatives defending a topical plan.

- Fairness and clash are paramount, with impact turns such as those related to hegemony, capitalism, and liberalism being particularly interesting to me.

- Many non-topical affirmatives rely on implicit assumptions about debate's impact on subject formation, which often fails to meet the presumption barrier.

- I lack familiarity with Kritik vs. Kritik debates.

Phil:

- While I appreciate philosophical arguments, I rarely introduce them myself. I default to comparative worlds and epistemic modesty, but I'm open to persuasion. If your framework differs from utilitarianism or Kantian ethics, be sure to thoroughly explain it.

- The 1AC should establish a framework; new justifications in the 1AR may be viewed as questionable.

Tricks:

• I typically avoid tricks and prefer not to judge cheap-shot strategies. However, I'm willing to hear them out. Theory tricks seem intuitive, while substantive tricks may require additional explanation.

John

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

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.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- 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 DebateWhile 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: 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.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

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.