Junior at Mira Loma High. Been debating for 3 years now.

I think of myself as a standard flow judge.

Online Debate: If competitors are comfortable, I prefer if everyone has their camera on. You will get higher speaks if you do so. Also, if my camera is not on, don't begin speaking.

Before round: Add me to the email chain: m.j20081@gmail.com

Also, label the chain appropriately, ex. Berkeley R1 Flight 1: Mira Loma AS 1st AFF vs Durham HH 2nd NEG.

Speech Docs: Send the full speech doc before speeches - if you do this you're speaks won't go below 28.5. If you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

Specific to novice: Create an off-time roadmap. It helps you and it helps me. Just don't make them long, it should be to the point and short.

Kritics:

• Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB.

• Explain your kritik in cross if its rare and ask me before round if its something I have seen before.
• No friv Ks.

Theory:

• Make sure to extend theory in every round. If dropped - I will take that into heavy consideration.
• You can run any theory you want, just explain it well
• However, they are quite boring to judge so run it at your own risk

Tricks:

• Send me a doc if you are reading tricks.
  
• Also, not a huge fan but whatever

General:

• Collapse!!! The FF should have one contention and a few args on the opps case. Choose your best argument, frontline it well, and weigh.
• Please preflow before round
• Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate the round on what is being said and make my decision off that.
• I don't flow cross. Use it to poke holes in the opps argument, not to extend your own arguments.
• If your evidence is miscut (egregiously) and called out - I will not vote for you.
• Please send evidence in the email chain in 1 min or less. Otherwise, I'll start by lowering your speaks. I really like rounds to be quick and taking forever to find evidence kind of looks like you're stealing prep time.
• Please keep track of your own prep time.
• I stop flowing 5-10 seconds after a speech time ends.
• Weighing is a core part of debate and carded weighing is cool.
• Please start weighing in summary.
• Make weighing comparative, compare link-ins, and metaweigh (pls).
• Also, please signpost. If you don't signpost, your speech gets convoluted very quickly.

Speaks:

• You'll get high speaks from me, just be confident and funny.
• I won't give you below 27 speaks unless you say something offensive.
• I'll give you instant 30 if both teams agree to debate without prep time (please agree and announce before the start of the round).

Overall, be chill in round. If you have any questions, ask before the start of the round.

Good luck!

Background

I am the English Coordinator at Colegio Japonés Paraguayo and I have been a debate coach for 6 years now. I started coaching a modified version of LD and that is what I was accustomed to until very recently. So, although I have been a debate coach and judge for over years, I am still new to the NSDA world/environment/events.

Specific notes

• Condescension, rudeness, or dismissive behavior (e.g., eye-rolling) will result in reduced speaker points. Respect your opponents and the spirit of debate.

• I value clarity and logical reasoning more than speed or technical prowess. Your goal is to convince me with well-supported arguments. I strongly prefer clear, deliberate communication over fast speech. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be able to evaluate your argument.

• The mere presence of evidence is insufficient. Thoroughly explain your claims, warrants, and impacts. Focus on the topic and substance. Make your points accessible and meaningful.

• Your final speeches should reflect what happened in the round. Summarize key points, weigh impacts, and clearly resolve areas of disagreement. A well-organized recap makes your case more persuasive.

Moderation and Prep Time

I can keep track of prep time for you if needed and will let you know how much time remains upon request.

I also keep track of time so I can let you know when there is a minute, or 30 seconds left upon request.

Final thoughts

Debate is about learning and growth. Enjoy the experience, challenge your ideas, and focus on creating a meaningful and respectful dialogue. Good luck!

I’ve decided to update my paradigm for two reasons. First, after judging the first third of the season, I have generated some thoughts based the debates I’ve seen. Second, I thought it would be more helpful to modify my paradigm to give readers a greater sense of how I view debates generally (rather than just a list of bullet points).

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for death).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and you show me that you used your flows as the basis of your argumentation throughout the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round (which will be reflected in the speaker points).

Theory

I’m unlikely to reject the team but have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency deficits, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts:While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good. On another note, I think the complex grammatical structure of the rez means that teams could likely get mileage out of defining more words together.

General thoughts:I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative. I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). A fun and underutilized aff tactic is to argue why a 1NC interpretation actually harms NEGATIVE ground/limits.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and underbaked “no link” arguments. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I often find that framework debates often become a wash and thus a secondary part in my decisions. I thus appreciate it when teams initiate a “compromise” of sorts near the end of the debate, such as by conceding part of the other team’s framework and still explaining why you win. This could sound something like “even if they win this debate should be about the consequences of the plan, we meet because the links are reasons why the policy action of the aff makes things worse.”

Other Notes on Policy-Oriented Debates

Counterplans:As mentioned above, I’m not usually enthusiastic to vote down a team on theory. However, if a counterplan cheats, the affirmative can argue that the problematic aspects of the counterplan justify things like intrinsic perms. Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case:Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

I am currently a Junior at Buchholz High School, in my third year of debate. I have done Public Forum for all three years, though I do have general experience in observing World Schools, LD, and Congress.

Tournament Specific:

I have prep on Taiwan. I've seen most arguments, and I've seen most debates go in the same directions. This resolution is all about warrants...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preferences

I prefer if you start an email chain with cases, please add me to it: vnguyen14345@gmail.com

I am decently seasoned, so jargon is okay.

My judging style is pretty Flay.

• I will write a rigorous flow, and I'm quite big on extensions. I flow on paper, so extensions are VERY visible to me.

• The lay part comes with presentation; in my eyes, this element of debate is key. Be clear, confident, and articulate; I want to understand what you’re saying. With equally weighted arguments, a bad speaker will likely lose the round for me.

• But ultimately, I focus on the quality of the logic in your arguments over the quantity. Logical gaps will lose the argument for me; link chains must be explicitly explained, else I will not vote for them. If I cannot understand your argument, it does not exist.

On spreading, keep it to a minimum. I don't LOVE spreading, and tbh I will likely miss a lot of your points if you go too fast. If you can help it, don't spread. If you do spread, let me know before the round. For reference, I can keep up with a ~1,000 word constructive pretty well. Too much faster and :(

On Ks and Theory, I also don't love these. I am familiar with them, I have prepped theory, but it's still not something that is in my arsenal. If you use them, please elaborate and thoroughly explain them to me. As always, if I don’t understand it, it does not exist. If Ks are not addressed, I will vote in the K’s favor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Round

Don’t steal prep.

Signposting = <3; a world without signposting is a world where I quit debate. This applies to speeches; if you don’t signpost, my flow gets very messy and you will be at a great disadvantage. It becomes very hard for you to win.

I will be keeping time with you, but please keep your own time. I will not signal to you that you are over your time; that is for you to keep note of.

• I will give you 15 seconds of grace, but past that, I will not take anything said into account.

• Obviously, I will let you finish your sentence or idea, just don’t go on for too long.

• I will keep note of your prep time. Ask if you need.

I do not flow cross. If a major point is made, bring it up in speech; otherwise it does not exist.

As before, quality > quantity. That means COLLAPSE!!

Weighing is pretty huge. I am a bit lazy, so don’t make me weigh for you. Most of my voting comes from weighing, so please integrate this throughout as many speeches as possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting

Again, I’m pretty flay. I will evaluate the win based on what is extended and the key issues won, then move onto impacts and weighing. Right after the round, I will be paying close attention to the flow and evaluate my win from this.

Final Focus is arguably the most important speech of the round for me. Make it count.

Keep in mind, quality arguments are a prereq. to any voting. If your argument does not make sense, I will not vote for it.

If you do not like my decision, or you have specific questions from the round that are not covered in the ballots, feel free to reach out to me. We can have a civil discussion there.

• vnguyen14345@gmail.com

• Discord: mudkipshujin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Points

At the end of the day, the goal of the debate is to,

a) Grow our understanding of complex ideas, and

b) Have fun.

On the having fun part; I will give extra speaker points by properly doing any of the following:

• Making me laugh (this is relatively easy)

• References to Stray Kids

• Using “You can yeet that out the window” (iykyk)

I prefer strong speakers and debaters, especially those who can hold their ground well. Cross is perfect for me to observe these traits, so be mindful of this. However, confidence and being a strong speaker does NOT equate to disrespect and being rude; please be respectful to your opponents, else you risk a tank to your speaks.

If everything here doesn’t answer your questions, ask me before the round; we can work things out then.

Let’s have a great debate!

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