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

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

I am Juliana Omane

As a seasoned orator, debate coach, and adjudicator, I bring a wealth of experience in various debating formats, including British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debate Championship, Canadian National Debate Format, Public Forum, and Parliamentary debate.

When evaluating debates, I emphasize the importance of respectful discourse, where speakers engage with arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks. I also prioritize equity and inclusivity, expecting participants to uphold these values.

To facilitate effective judging, I appreciate debaters who share their documents in advance, particularly for Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debates. A moderate speaking pace is also valued, as it enables me to fully absorb and assess the arguments presented.

In my evaluation, the quality of arguments and logical reasoning takes precedence over stylistic flourishes. I commend debaters who demonstrate a deep understanding of motion types, burden of proof, and the effective deployment of fiats and counter-plans. I do not have any any conflicts.

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.