In evaluating a debate, I prioritize the following criteria based on the overall effectiveness of the speakers in presenting and defending their arguments:

1. Argumentation & Logical Structure: The core of any debate is the quality of the arguments presented. I will prioritize clear, well-structured arguments with sound reasoning and evidence. Speakers must present their case in a logical manner, with clear claims, warrants (supporting evidence), and impacts (why it matters). The better the organization and the depth of the argument, the higher the speaker will rank.

2. Rebuttal & Responsiveness: How effectively each speaker responds to the opposing side’s arguments is crucial. Rebuttals should address specific points made by the opponent, demonstrating an understanding of their position while offering counterarguments. I expect debaters to engage with their opponent's points directly and demonstrate critical thinking.

3. Evidence & Data: The use of relevant, credible evidence is essential. I will look for debaters to use statistics, studies, examples, and expert opinions to back up their claims. Arguments without evidence or those that rely on weak sources will be less persuasive. The strength of the evidence presented and how well it is integrated into the argument will influence my decision.

4. Clarity & Presentation: While content is paramount, clarity in delivery matters. A speaker’s ability to present their arguments in a clear, concise, and understandable manner is essential. Overly complex language or convoluted arguments that confuse the audience will be penalized. I value eloquent speakers who can explain their points effectively and remain organized throughout the debate.

5. Persuasiveness & Impact: A strong debater must not only present logical arguments but also persuade the audience and judge. Persuasiveness involves both the emotional appeal and the rational appeal of the argument. The debater should demonstrate the significance of their points and the implications of their stance. I will pay close attention to how well each speaker highlights the real-world impact of their arguments.

6. Engagement & Delivery Style: A debater's ability to maintain the audience’s attention is crucial. This includes good pacing, eye contact, and confidence in delivery. Hand gestures, vocal variation, and maintaining an engaging presence will also influence the score. Speakers should avoid excessive filler words or nervous habits.

7. Strategy & Teamwork (in team debates): In team debates, collaboration and strategy are important. Each team member should complement the other’s arguments, avoid redundancy, and strategically decide who tackles which aspects of the argument. A team that works cohesively will receive higher marks than one with disjointed contributions.

Final Considerations: I evaluate the debate as a whole, considering who provided the strongest overall case and who best managed the dynamic of the debate. A debater who demonstrates the ability to adapt, refute effectively, and leave a strong, memorable closing argument will be ranked highly.

This paradigm reflects my focus on argument strength, clarity, and persuasion while appreciating strategic thinking and effective presentation.

Hello,

My name is Israel Ajake. I am a regular debater and a debate coach. I have gathered speaking experience in British Parliamentary (BP), Worlds School Debate Championship (WSDC), Asian Parliament (AP), Canadian National Debate Format (CNSF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.

Email address: israelajake@gmail.com

Conflict: I have none.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you're in a round with me, it's important to know that I place a strong emphasis on respectful, fair, balanced, and constructive discussions during debates. I highly value debaters who meet all expectations, including fulfilling their roles, effectively addressing debate burdens, presenting strong arguments and rebuttals, and engaging in a fair and thoughtful manner during disagreements.

On Speed:

I typically judge fast-paced debates and am comfortable with spreading in formats where it is standard, such as Policy and progressive LD. If you're unclear or too fast for me to follow (though this is rare), I'll signal with "clear" or "slow." When spreading, I appreciate it if you clearly indicate the end of one card and the start of another (e.g., saying "NEXT" or "AND") and slow down on tags to ensure clarity.

In formats where spreading isn't the norm, I’m fine with slightly faster speech than regular conversation, as long as the pace remains comprehensible to a lay audience.

On Impact:

Like many judges, I appreciate when debaters perform impact calculus and explain why their impacts carry more weight within their framework. If no impact comparison is provided, I default to prioritizing probability over magnitude, while using reversibility and timeframe as secondary considerations. I am also open to voting on impact turns if properly argued.

On Attitude and Conduct:

I deeply respect competitors who demonstrate mutual respect, professionalism, and a genuine understanding of each other during rounds. I strongly dislike behaviors such as rudeness, hostility, or intolerance. Please maintain a positive attitude and be mindful of how you interact with your opponents.

By keeping these principles in mind, you can create a fair and productive debate environment that I will highly appreciate.

Good luck.

Dear Debating Community,

Having gotten years 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

Coming from Mankato State, I am a university debater however never did it in high school. I like creative policies, thinking outside of the box and being able to have fun I think is the best especially when it’s early on in the season, staked are low no need to be so tense.
Do not spread, it is a curse that I do not condone. If I don’t understand your argument then I won’t vote for your argument.
Clash is always fun, trying to pick each others arguments apart is a lot more enjoyable. I do also enjoy when individuals bring in their own knowledge into the playing field as it really dives deeper into their sense of debating the topic and also how prepared they are with the topic. It can also come in handy when the opponents do not refute the points made even with the lack of textual evidence.

I have debated policy a couple of times for high school, I do not know congress form of debate. I was a speech kid throughout high school and I have experience of 4 years high school and 1/2 years college. (12/10/24)

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Hello, my name is olayinka Oderanti. I am a debater, a coach and an experienced judge since (2022-now. For me, speaking is an hobby and I love listening to people speak.

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), congress, Parliamentary debate, Lincoln Douglas (LD),World scholastic championship (WSC) and some others.

I have also judge many speeches.

As a judge, I prioritize equality of debaters and fairness during every round.
I also take time as very important,for me arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

I appreciate speakers that prioritize clarity instead of pace or speed without clarity. Heads-up could be given when speakers decide to speak extremely fast and documents can also be sent for already planned motion for some formats like Lincoln Douglas(LD)and public forum (PF).

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style. Speakers should emphasize their arguments well enough instead of randomly stating them.

I appreciate speakers who understands the difference in formats and motions and know what they should do and not to.
A little bit of summary of the speech should be given at the end of the round to summarize why you win the round picking from arguments given during the round and the crossfire sessions.

I have a variety of skills such as rapt listening, critical analysis, and attention to details which allows me to access submissions fairly and without bias.
I am committed to encouraging and supporting participants ensuring that their efforts are recognized and valued. To me, it’s not just about selecting a winner but also fostering growth and breeding potentials.

Here are a few of my past experiences judging ( tabroom specific)

1. Judge 7 PF rounds, Georgetown Fall, 6th October 2023.

2. Finals, Semifinals and Octofinals judge of ESPAR, ESPAR and PF respectively, Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational, 11th November 2023.

3. Judge semifinal, quart and 3 rounds including PF,ESPAR and IMP in the WInter championship,6th January,2024.

4. ⁠ judge doubles, octafinals and 6 rounds of PF in the 38th annual Stamford invitational,10th February,2024.

5. ⁠judged 3 double flighted rounds of PF in the Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament 16th February,2024.

6. ⁠judged 3 rounds of LD in the Loyola special scrimmage , 2nd march 2024.

7. ⁠judged a round of asynchronous declamation at the NSDA springboard scrimmage 23,19th march, 2024.

8. ⁠judged 3 rounds of CNDF at the Vancouver debate academy spring tournament 22nd June 2024.
⁠
9. ⁠judged 2 rounds of IPDA HS/JH season opener 13th September 2024.

10. Judges 4 rounds of PF including doubles in the Tim Averill invitational online October 2024.

11. Judged a round of WSD in the citron November world school invitational November 2024.

12. Judged 2 rounds of LD in the Citron December debate invitational,December 2024..

Let’s have a great time anyways.

pronouns He/him

Hey there

As a judge, 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

Hi there,

My name is Oyewumi Emmanuel Oluwatobi, I am a student at the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. I am a seasoned debater, public speaker and judge, with over 2 years involvement in debating. I am 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), Public Forum (PF), WSDC, Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Declamation

Email address: oyewumioluwatobi2@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE

I think of debate as a way to share ideas on different matters and make those ideas stronger by pointing out flaws and loopholes in them. I also see it as a game of arguments and whoever's argument that has the least flaws, provides accommodations for those flaws or prove why their arguments regardless of those flaws matter wins.

I have experience in British Parliamentary and public forum debate format, both speaking and judging. Though I prefer speaking. I am an ESL speaker, so I would also like people to know that, so it's not hard to understand you when you're speaking.

Lastly, I'm a nice person, and I like every debater in any round I am judging to be nice to one another and learn from each other. So, there is no need to be rude to each other in a debate round.

It's my belief that in every round, even if one loses, there is always something to learn, something to improve on.

Looking forward to working together. Thank you

############

Policy:

############

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years, but it was way back when Policy was centered around case/stock issues and quite a bit simpler than most Policy is today. I didn't hear the word "condo" or "PIC" until I was already a man... by then they were nothing to me but blinding. I'm interested in all the "new" Policy arguments and have tried to learn and understand them, but it would probably still be best for advanced Policy debaters to consider me lay, maybe flay at best.

Paradigm: Tech>truth and tabula rasa. I view Policy debate as a verbal strategy game. I can be persuaded to view it some other way. I can be persuaded of almost anything in Policy.

Arguments: I'll vote on anything you can explain, win, and weigh (as long as it is not completely reprehensible or clearly harmful to people in the round). Policy should be a space where we can question assumptions that we would probably not question in other debate formats. I'll vote on Ks but you will need to explain the argument in a way that a layman can understand. If you are going to tell me in a K that your "buddy is without Oregons" with no further explanation of what that means, I feel bad for you and your buddy both because you are probably going "de lose". Explain what you mean clearly and I am fine with Ks. I am open to non-traditional cases as long as there is some way for something resembling a debate to still take place and there is still some way for me to evaluate the round.

Speed: I prefer moderate speed, I give no speed warnings, and I don't flow any words that are not clear, so it would probably be strategic for you to only go 80% of your full speed with me. I am of only average intelligence and average flowing ability, and I would hate to vote the wrong way because I missed a good argument you made because you were going too fast for me to understand or flow it. I don't like making a bad decision any more than you like receiving one; help me help you. I don't look at doc files unless a piece of evidence has been called into question.

How I evaluate the round: I vote on the impacts that got extended into the final speeches, weighing them according to the weighing mechanisms I was instructed to use within the round.

Keep it civil: I will never vote down a rude debater just for being rude, but I will add your grandma on Facebook and message her and tell her how rude you were being and she will be very disappointed, so please be courteous to everyone in the round.

############

PF:

############

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years, but it was way back when Policy was centered around case/stock issues and quite a bit simpler than most Policy is today. Back then it kind of resembled what we would see today in fast PF rounds. So I feel pretty at home in most PF rounds.

Paradigm: Tech>truth in PF, but unlike with Policy I will not believe statements that are plainly untrue, so maybe tech≈truth. In general I think Policy-style debate should stay in Policy and PF should be its own thing.

Arguments: There is nothing wrong with running an obvious contention and simply researching it to death, in fact I think that is the clearest path to victory in PF. Unique oddball contentions are fun though. Please don't run really weird definitions or frameworks that attempt to trickily obliterate the opponent ground or make the resolution tautological, all this accomplishes is to make the entire debate about your definition, which is not fun or educational for anyone. I won't believe that the framers intended the resolution to be interpreted in a way that makes debate impossible for one side. That said, if you get hit with something weird, I expect you to engage with it and debate it. Please don't just tell me something is against the rules; in reality the rules for all styles of debate are pretty vague and open to interpretation, so give me a better reason to vote against squirrely arguments than an appeal to the rules. I am personally open to non-traditional cases as long as there is some way for something resembling a debate to still take place and there is still some way for me to evaluate the round, however I would strongly discourage you from running silly meme cases when the judge panel includes volunteer judges from the community; in this case, it actually does real harm to our activity.

Speed: Speed good... up to a point. Rounds that are too slow often end up lacking substantive argument and just becoming "talk pretty" competitions, while rounds that are too fast become speed reading competitions and then fall apart dramatically and disastrously during final focus when there is not enough time to collapse your arguments properly and summarize the round in a way that makes sense. So I recommend aiming for a medium "goldilocks" speed. Try to cover the whole flow and keep your voters extended throughout the round, BUT also don't be afraid to let your opponent have some things and go for what you are winning. There is never enough time in PF to cover everything, so be very careful not to get sucked into wasting time on the wrong arguments. Know what you have hopelessly lost and don't waste your time repeating an answer from an earlier speech that is not going to win the clash anyway, let that argument go and focus on something else that you can win.

Theory: I'd prefer not to hear theory unless there is a real reason for it. I am certain there are situations that warrant the use of theory, but do not think theory should be in every PF round. My opinion on paraphrasing in PF is that it is probably fine in the abstract and is not fundamentally different than highlighting evidence or inherently abusive. But in practice, paraphrasing often has the unfortunate consequence of speeding up PF rounds too much and making them very difficult to flow. Due to lack of taglines, a paraphrased PF case read with speed can be more difficult to flow than a Policy case read at the same speed. PF should not be harder to flow than Policy, that is just silly. But I am open to being persuaded either way on paraphrasing good/bad. I'm unlikely to vote on trigger warning theory unless there is an egregious issue in the round that the theory is addressing. I'm neutral on disclosure.

How I evaluate the round: I vote on the impacts that got extended into the final speeches, weighing them according to the weighing mechanisms I was instructed to use within the round. If the round comes down to an unlikely nuke war impact vs a smaller more likely impact, I would love to see some debate on how the relatively small likelihood of a nuclear war should be weighed against a smaller but more likely impact. There are good arguments on both sides, but if nobody makes them, this type of round becomes hard to evaluate fairly. Don't make me try to decide between apples and oranges on my own, please do the weighing for me.

############

LD:

############

Background: I debated HS Policy for 4 years. I've coached and judged some trad LD. I have near zero exposure to progressive LD. I do not have a strong knowledge of philosophy.

Paradigm: Tech>truth in LD, but unlike with Policy I will not believe statements that are plainly untrue, so maybe tech≈truth. In general I think Policy-style debate should stay in Policy and LD should be its own thing. But with that said, I am okay with judging a progressive LD debate if both competitors can agree before the round that they want to debate progressively. If not, I default to a traditional perspective on LD.

Speed: Moderate speed is fine.

Theory: I'd prefer not to hear theory unless there is a real reason for it.

How I evaluate the round: I see two separate but related debates taking place in LD:

The first debate decides which value/criterion is most important when considering the resolution. This debate can be won by analyzing the resolution, using examples or thought experiments, preempting, subsuming or underlying your opponents value, using logic, getting admissions in CX, etc. Winning this part of the debate does not mean that you win the round, but it lets you set the weighing mechanism for the rest of the debate since your value/criterion will become the standard that all impacts are weighed against.

The rest of the debate centers around whether we should affirm or negate the resolution, when considered in light of the winning value/criterion. I look at the impacts that were extended into the final speeches and decide which weigh most heavily under the winning value. If the winning value is justice for example, I look at whose arguments best achieve justice. If you have a great nuke war impact but you do zero work relating it to justice, it has zero weight, I will not do the work of relating impacts to the value for you.

If you think there is no strategic reason to defend your value over your opponents, you are more than welcome to kick your own value and concede to your opponents value and then simply tie your arguments to their value and outweigh them on their own value. There's no shame in that.

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.