Hello, 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.

Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.

mstefbon@proton.me

pronouns: they/them

role: always 2N, can swap on the aff

HS: essex county tech 2012-2016, national circuit debater

college: bard debate union 2016-2020 (majored in mathematics and anthropology, concentrations in environmental science and international studies)

geography doctoral researcher (southeast asia focus) @ University of Minnesota (UMN), model UN graduate affiliate

i also coach/tutor for academic olympiads in linguistics, geography, earth science, philosophy, and political science! email me (or have your parents email me!) for info, rates, scholarship info, etc!

general paradigm info: (writing this now to get something down, will be expanded later!)
** not tech nor truth but structural integrity

** Always Remember To Signpost

** debate taught me how to learn about theory! read and understand what you're arguing so you can apply it in the real world!
** spreading neutral

** fairness args should be based on clash, not something you bring pre-loaded

** i *love* CX. will award speaker points for particular skill in this regard. tagteaming is ok, but split your time equally

** isolate clear examples

** will always prefer well-researched, contemporary, nuanced or structural impacts over xd zomg nuclear war

** i like silly but you should learn something from your silliness

** give your link/IL chain Everything you've got

** i am very sympathetic to framework and that is because I love K

** stolen from isabel kleckner ---

"there are good topicality arguments. "I don't know how to debate a K" is not one of them."

** i know a lot about china and this could hurt you ;)

THIS DOCUMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND SO ARE WE. GOOD LUCK OUT THERE!

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience for the past 2 years

2. Fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

If you're reading this, you're most likely in the novice division, feel free to ask questions if any of this confuses you, I am here to help you grow as a debater (but if we're in varsity/open then ignore all parts of my paradigm that mentions novice restrictions, they're just there for the novices)

I will offer to give verbal critiques if wanted after round (and if the tournament allows I will disclose my decision)

If you guys want to go fast (both teams must consent), please create an email chain and attach the speech doc you're speaking off of, please attach my email phansen0092@myduneland.org

Events I am familiar with

• Policy (main event)
• Lincoln Douglas (Know the event and competed in it multiple times)
• Big Questions (Competed at NSDA last year)
• Congress (competed in a couple times per year)
• World School (occasionally competed in, also helped the district team prep for NSDA last year)

How do you win with me?

• Clear impact calculus (I really like it when people follow the format of [x] outweighs and encompasses [y] with 2 different reasons (scope, severity, etc.), I WILL GIVE BONUS SPEAKER POINTS TO TEAMS THAT DO THIS!!!
• Extending your arguments and explaining why your evidence is better than your opponents
• Big impacts are good, feel free to run nuke war as I love it as an impact (just make sure to explain the link chain)

What not to do (all of these will result in speaker point deductions)

• Calling your opponents racist/homophobic/sexist
• Violate speech times
• Stealing prep time
• Lying about evidence (I will ask to see specific cards post round if I'm skeptical)
• Attacking your opponent as a person (ad hominem)

Policy Specific Things

• Policymaker (weigh advantages vs DAs)
• You must know and explain your link chain
• Politics DAs are good
• I am very familiar with the IP topic
• I do know the novice restrictions and will not tolerate teams violating it, that being said the other team MUST mention it in a speech for me to do so
• Even though you guys are restricted to novice cases, Topicality is still a good argument that I love especially when arguing that the aff does not fall under the novice case that the aff claims to be
• Jargon is okay
• You should also try and make a advantage turns DA or vice versa
• Kicking/conceding arguments is ok and often encouraged (but aff should run condo)
• 2nr should only go for 1 DA and 2ar should only go for 1 advantage
• Overviews are overpowered, make sure to do them
• Don't hide theory/procedurals unless were sending docs
• I default to no judge kick
• I do not care about stock issues

LD Specific Things

• Just because you're winning on the value/VC debate doesn't mean you can drop your opponent's case
• When running turns you should emphasize the effect it has on the value/VC
• If both teams for some reason drop their values, I will shift to a policymaker framing
• Actually explain what your value/VC means
• Something I think is underutilized in the Value/VC debate is its effect on debate/fairness (ex. using societal welfare as the value makes it impossible for the other side to win) appeal to me as a judge and make these arguments if possible
• If you want to do more progressive/circuit strategies I am perfectly fine with it (i.e. running off case instead of neg contentions)
• On this topic specifically, I think both teams should address how the election turned out as there are aspects that could benefit both sides
• Plans/Counterplans are good (but could still lose to theory)
• 1nc should be max 4 minutes of neg case, covering the aff case requires time
• If you're running a plan/counterplan, I would recommend replacing your value structure with a framework that essentially says to weigh the desirability of the plan vs an alternative/status quo

Other Things

• Tech over truth in all instances, I do not share the beliefs of judges who claim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good or wipeout, but every argument still needs a claim, warrant and impact
• While I debate in a lay circuit, I do love progressive forms of debate and I'm okay if you want to try those types of strategies
• I'm fine with open cross-ex (or POIs in worlds) as long as both teams agree to it before the round starts
• I love climate impacts, just please actually know what you're talking about
• Empirics are great and often underutilized
• Make sure you time your speeches and prep
• Ks are fine (outside of policy cuz of novice restrictions)
• Theory is ok but I typically have a high threshold for voting on it
• Don't ask for higher speaks, you shall not receive
• Call me whatever (Judge, Patrick, Mr. Hansen, Bro) I do not care
• Be nice
• Don't let my paradigm completely change your debate style, you should do what your comfortable with

Hi, there.

I'm Qareebat Ibrahim, a penultimate law student at the University of Ilorin, 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!

Student at Princeton High School, TX

Add me to the email chain or SpeechDrop (tanishak07@gmail.com).

You frame the round. Write my ballot for me.

Don't run dumb theory.

Mid-high speed is ok but make sure I can understand you. If you're spreading analytics put them on the doc.

If you're reading a K, I don't read lit so be prepared to explain it completely (Framework>>>).

Please maintain decorum. If you are rude or say something -phobic I will laugh at you because you just got the L.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Hey! Alex here!

If you're looking to analyze me through this, I'd recommend giving up now – you'll find more questions than answers.

For my background, I've been involved in speech events for years now – sometimes against my will. My background has seen me tour 23 unique cities across 3 countries. Over these events, I've heard (seen and said) some of the most outrageous things ever, so don't be afraid to go wild when I'm judging. As long as you can logically defend it, I'm sold.

In my view, debating is an exchange, between teams and speakers. And as such, priority has to be which side provides the best and most reasonable logical connections. And there are no bad attempts, just underdeveloped ones. For me, priority is placed on the likelihood and scale of impacts, in that order.

It should go without saying but please be civil during exchanges. This includes badgering – just don't do it. I could impose penalties for more severe violations, or more consistent ones. Just have a nice and normal debate that leaves everyone a little smarter at the end of it.

Final thoughts, I'm a Newcastle United AND Houston Rockets fan. Don't ask, I know I make bad decisions.

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.