Timothy Adediran

Speech and Debate Expert | Accomplished Adjudicator | Seasoned Coach

Timothy Adediran is a distinguished figure in the world of speech and debate, celebrated for his exceptional expertise, analytical precision, and unwavering commitment to excellence. As a Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) at prestigious events like the All Nigerian University Debate Championship, the Youth Speech Day Open, and DCA Vamid.zo 2024, Timothy has consistently demonstrated his unparalleled skill in guiding high-level competitions.

Notable accolades include being ranked as the Seventh Best Judge at the Transform Open Arena 3.0 and serving on the Finals Panel at the same event. He also played a pivotal role as the Novice Finals Judge at EVC 6.0, solidifying his reputation as a fair and insightful adjudicator.

Beyond judging, Timothy is a seasoned coach with an impressive track record, having led teams to two significant championship victories. His deep understanding of speech and debate, coupled with his passion for mentoring the next generation of debaters, makes him a highly sought-after figure in the field.

A dedicated professional, Timothy Adediran continues to inspire excellence and foster a culture of growth and learning within the speech and debate

community.

Hi there,
I’m Mitchell Akinjayeju, preferred pronouns are she/ her. I am a regular debater and public speaker. During the course of my debating career, I’ve been able to gather ample judging experiences and also skills necessary for judging different debating formats and styles e.g BP, AP, Public Forum, Oratory speeches, Lincoln Douglas, amongst others.

I'm also quite familiar with judging these debating styles on tabroom as well.

Conflicts: None

PERSONAL NOTE:

I prioritize a fair, positive and highly engaging room. I also hold in high regards time management, role fulfillment, good structural speeches, amongst others. It is also necessary and advised to engage with context, framing and arguments of other teams even if you do not agree with their speeches, providing a counter factual in your own speech where deemed necessary.

I take account of everything a speaker says irregardless of the pace of speech due to human diversity and nature although, I prefer medium paced speeches as it makes the flow of point taking easier.

Special Consideration for Virtual Debates:

Cameras should be kept on at all times. In instances where you can’t keep your camera on, do well to communicate that and there’ll be an exception.

Thank you.

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

Hello my name is Bakare Okikiola Daniel a debate lover, a speaker,a coach and a judge.

I bring a unique blend of impartiality, empathy, and dedication to ensuring each debater’s voice is heard and respected. I understand that debating is not just about winning or losing; it’s about presenting ideas thoughtfully, analyzing arguments critically, and engaging with opposing viewpoints in a constructive manner. I care deeply about every debater’s perspective, recognizing that each speaker offers valuable insights, regardless of whether I agree with their position.

I approach every round with a mindset of active listening and fair evaluation. Rather than simply scoring points, I strive to understand the underlying logic and evidence presented. When judging, I make sure to give equal weight to both sides of the debate, acknowledging the strengths of each argument and critiquing weaknesses in a way that’s constructive, not dismissive. It’s important to me that debaters feel their points are taken seriously, and that their efforts to communicate, persuade, and respond to challenges are respected.

I also believe in providing feedback that helps debaters grow. I don’t just point out where arguments could be stronger or more developed, but I also highlight moments where debaters show creativity, adaptability, and skillful argumentation. My goal is not only to be a neutral arbiter, but also a mentor in fostering a space where debaters can learn from each other and refine their craft.

Ultimately, my commitment is to uphold the integrity of the debate, ensuring that the decision I make is grounded in a fair, thoughtful, and respectful analysis of each side’s position. Every debater deserves to feel that their voice has been valued, and I take that responsibility seriously.

Hello, my name is John Phebe Ifeoluwa. I am an experienced judge with over 3 years of expertise in evaluating debates across various formats, including British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Format, Public Forum Debates, Lincoln Douglas, and Speech Formats. My passion for debate stems from my active participation in multicultural debate tournaments, such as the Intervarsity Agricultural Debate Summit, which has broadened my perspective and refined my judging skills.

As a judge, I prioritize logical reasoning, ideological consistency with the motion, and the ability of speakers to uphold truism within the debate room. I value debates where speakers fulfill their designated roles effectively and constructively engage with their opponents through clear, well-thought-out rebuttals.

I pride myself on being an unbiased adjudicator who ensures fairness and equity within the debate environment. I also emphasize the importance of speakers and participants adhering to tournament briefings and guidelines, as this fosters a more structured and engaging competition.

I excel in providing detailed, actionable feedback to students, helping them grow as debaters and critical thinkers. My judging philosophy revolves around ensuring that every speaker is assessed objectively, with attention to their ability to prioritize key arguments, utilize advanced techniques like counterfactuals and fiats, and maintain time discipline during rounds.

Additionally, I appreciate whip and summary speeches where speakers highlight comparisons, emphasize their team's key arguments, and demonstrate why they prevail in the debate without introducing unnecessary extensions. Maintaining camera presence in online tournaments, unless unavoidable, is another practice I encourage to ensure seamless engagement.

In conclusion, my experience, attention to detail, and dedication to fostering fair and enriching debate rounds make me a reliable and insightful judge. I look forward to contributing to tournaments by encouraging speakers to reach their highest potential.

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

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory

He/Him pronouns

Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

FLOW

I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), 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 my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs are 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 CONDUCT

• I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
• 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.
• Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
• Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.

WHAT APPEALS

Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.

Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.

Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.

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

MY PARADIGM.

Welcome to the Debate Arena!

Judge Profile: Salman Opeyemi Sulaiman

About Me:

I bring over a decade of expertise as a debater, judge, and coach. My passion lies in nurturing analytical skills and fostering intellectual discourse within the framework of debate. While I prioritize substance over style, both are essential for a compelling argument. I also prioritise a constructive characterisation in terms of setting up a debate motion, before going into argument as this lay the foundation to your entire case. I have a highly intellectual knowledge in the debate circuit, which is not only limited or circular to parliamentary debate, world school debate (WSL), public forum, among other policy debates. My experienced approach emphasizes fair pacing and attentive listening in delivering an effective evaluation and scrutiny in debate rounds.

Contact Information:

Reach me at: salmanopeyemi564@gmail.com

Conflicts:

No conflicts to declare, as I posses none.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A STRONG DEBATE:

Critics:

A well-articulated critic can be a game-changer, but relevance to the debate topic is paramount. Clear explanation of links, impacts, and alternatives enhances persuasiveness. Connect the critic to the broader narrative and use real-world examples for clarity. Ensure adherence to debate format rules and engage in dialogue during cross-examination for clarification.

Policy:

Master deep research, effective evidence usage, clear argument structure, adaptability, and strong cross-examination skills for success. Craft questions strategically during cross-examination to highlight weaknesses and gather information. Focus on arguments with strategic relevance, prioritize clarity over speed, and aim for quality over quantity.

Speaker Points:

Substantive contributions and meaningful clash are key to earning speaker points. Utilize evidence effectively, make further analysis, which may include impactful weighing and comparisons and consider re-highlighting at a point when it adds value to your argumentation.

JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE

Qualities I Value:

Active listening, objective evaluation, striving for excellence, inquisitive mentality, open-mindedness, confident delivery, and readiness to defend positions.

Impact Weighing:

I evaluate arguments based on their impact, relevance and significance. Effective impact weighing can sway the outcome of the debate and even produce more clarity on which resolution is the best. Give due attention to impact weighing in your speeches to bolster your position and influence the judge’s decision.

FINAL REMARKS:

Regular practice, seeking feedback, and continuous improvement are essential for honing debating skills. Remember to prioritize substance, engage in thoughtful discourse, and enjoy the debating experience.

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality and impactful debates.

Best regards,

Salman Opeyemi Sulaiman.