Lighthouse Forensics Frosty Winter Clash CANCELED
2025 — Online, US
Debate Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello, my name is Anene, Ebubechukwu Anthony. I am a multiple award winning debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.
Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, including but not limited to; 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 take equity issues very seriously, so I expect speakers to follow all equity rules. I advise speakers to attack arguements and not speakers.
Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles.
I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.
In debate, I value burden fulfillment, role fulfillment, 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.
I favor neither technique nor truth but rather structural integrity: I judge arguments primarily on the basis of their internal coherence and practical salience. Strong internal linkages, framework and kritik will be judged favorably.
Roadmapping: I prefer to know how you are structuring and evidencing your argument in advance. I am a novice to debate judging, so please be gentle with me vis a vis spreading, may explicitly ask you to slow down!
Fairness-based arguments should be emergent from the course of the argument, not pre-decided. Sharpness in cross-examination will also be rewarded. Finally, burden of proof is on the affirmative side vis a vis coherently arguing against/accounting for the counters of the negative side.
- 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."
My name is Goodluck Obiora, I come to judge the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.
In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic
I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.
I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.
Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion
It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.
good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.
For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.
Hi, there.
I'm Qareebat.
I have sufficient experience in PF, LD, and Congressional debating. I have over 2 years of incredible experience in British Parliamentary and WSD styles that have provided me with skills in understanding, and listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF, LD and other debate styles.
This means I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for debaters and speakers and provide them with useful feedback.
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 fulfil 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!
General Expectations of Me (Considerations for Your Attention)
I typically operate at a "flay" level on average and "flow" level on good days. Here are things you shouldn't expect from me:
1. Assumptions About My Knowledge: Always explain things fully as I may not be familiar with what you know.
2. Post-round Feedback: You're welcome to post-round me, and I'm open to feedback, but it won't necessarily change my decision. All influencing factors must occur during the debate.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions:I'll disclose in elimination rounds unless instructed otherwise. In prelims, disclosure is not expected unless explicitly stated.
4. Clarity Over Speed: I flow on paper, so speaking too quickly may cause me to miss points. Remember, defense isn't sticky in PF; coverage and clarity matter.
5. Debate Philosophy: I prioritize technical arguments over truth by a narrow margin. I aim to identify the debate's winner based on the participants' performance.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Speaker Points:
- I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Clarity, fluidity, confidence, and decorum are crucial.
- Avoid yelling at opponents during cross and maintain proper decorum throughout the round.
Structure/Organization:
- Signposting is essential for clarity and coherence. Lack of signposting can lead to confusion.
Framework (FW):
- In PF, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless specified otherwise. In LD, a clear Value and Value Criterion are necessary.
Regarding the Decision (RFD):
- I judge tabula rasa, relying only on what I hear in the round. Dropped points and extensions are crucial but must be clearly articulated.
SPEED:
- I'm a paper flow judge and don't flow on a computer. Avoid spreading or speed reading; clarity in communication is vital.
---
Should other considerations arise, I'll update this list accordingly
Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir . 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
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
I approach judging with a focus on fairness, clarity, and adherence to the rules of the debate format. My primary goal is to ensure that all arguments are evaluated objectively, based on their merit within the round.
I strive to be a fair and unbiased judge. If something is unclear, feel free to ask for clarification.
I value civility and expect all participants to approach the discussion with an open mind and a commitment to respectful discourse. Please avoid personal attacks or biased language.
To enhance understanding, I encourage debaters to speak at a moderate pace, provide clear roadmaps, and focus on the substance and relevance of their arguments. While facts can be informative, the strength of your case ultimately lies in the logical coherence and persuasiveness of your reasoning.
Let's strive for a debate that is both informative and enjoyable. By adhering to these principles, we can create a productive and enriching intellectual experience for all."
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.
I am experienced with the WSDC, PF, LD, Speeches and Asians formats.
Notes for speakers:
I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of the evidence.
While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated withit.
If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
Road maps are appreciated.
Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
Any kind of style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
I am reasonably low during speech. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.