Hi! I graduated from Plano East in 2024, and I'm now a student at UT Austin! I'll mainly be judging Congress and Extemp:

Congress:Content is often overlooked in Congress, but to me, it's definitely the most important part of a speech. Bring unique ideas and arguments into the debate to keep it interesting. Make sure to refute, weigh, and interact with speakers on both sides. I also value good rhetoric integrated into the heavy content, it differentiates you from the rest of the competitors in the room. When it comes to delivery, just be yourself and keep it fun.

PO: Know the Congress procedures clearly and keep the chamber running efficiently. As long as you keep the round moving smoothly, you will be ranked well. Making one or two precedence/recency mistakes is okay, but if it's disrupting the round, you will be ranked lower. I'll always rank an exceptional speaker over a PO.

Extemp:Answer the question clearly, with strong content to demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic area. Maintain a fluent cadence and make your delivery memorable, humor is awesome!

In case I’m judging any other event, here are some general things I’ll be looking for:

Debate Events: Make sure to keep the flow organized, clearly sign-post, so it’s easy for me to understand. If you plan on spreading, that’s cool, just share the case beforehand. Weighing is a huge part of any debate event, so spend a good portion of time doing that in the last few speeches of the round.

IE Events: Similar to Extemp, as long as I’m able to follow along with your speech/piece, that’s great. A personal connection to the topic is pretty cool too.

I typically judge speech events!

Hello!

I am a third-year Speech and Debate coach who has specialized in CX and IE's. In a competitor, the most important attributes to me are kindness, sportsmanship, and professionalism (behaviorally). Please feel free to reach out with any questions that you have about my feedback.

Sincerely,

Jessica Black

1st year parent judge, new to debate. Be slow and clear when you speak and try not to use tech language.

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.

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 Debaters! I am Alma and I am excited to judge this event. If I don't understand what you're saying, it will result in a loss. Don't spread, I will not be flowing. I will not be doing email chains as I am judging on my phone.

General Philosophy

Clarity and Persuasion:

I value clear, persuasive arguments that are easy to follow. Speak at a conversational pace so I can fully understand and appreciate your points. The goal is to convince me, not overwhelm me.

Presentation Matters:

Your speaking style, tone, eye contact, and overall delivery will play a big role in how I evaluate the round. A confident, respectful, and engaging presentation can go a long way.

Content Over Technicalities:

While structure and framework are important, I will focus on the quality of your arguments and the reasoning behind them. Avoid overly technical debate terms or excessive reliance on evidence dumps; instead, explain your points clearly.

What I’m Looking For

Framework:

Please establish a clear framework that tells me how I should evaluate the round. I will do my best to weigh arguments within the framework provided. However, make it simple and understandable for a non-specialist.

Logical and Ethical Reasoning:

Arguments should make sense logically and connect to moral or ethical principles. I want to see why your position is important in the real world.

Evidence with Explanation:

Evidence is important, but I care more about how you explain its relevance. Don’t just quote statistics—show me why they matter and how they support your case.

Clash:

Address your opponent’s points directly and refute them respectfully. I value thoughtful engagement over ignoring or dismissing arguments.

Impact:

Help me understand the significance of your arguments. Why does your position matter, and how does it affect people or society?

Thank you for your hard work! I look forward to seeing your debate.

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.

Framework:

LD is a framework debate. Always, always, always refer your arguments back to your Value and Value Criterion for the round. When stating your value, make sure you explain why it's the most important issue in the round and why it outweighs whatever value your opponent has.

Drops:

Pay attention to any arguments your opponent may have dropped! This could be enough to win you the round if you explain why the drop matters and extend it on to your later speech.

Impact Calculus:

Points for emphasizing how an argument outweighs on time-frame, magnitude, probability, etc.

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.

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in British Parliamentary(BP), Lincoln Douglas(LD), World Schools Debate(WSC), Asian Parliamentry(AP), Public Forum(PF) and Policy Debates across different debate platforms e.g Tabroom, Calicotab, and Forensics.net

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com.

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

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

Hello, my name is Muideen Popoola. I am a debater and public speaker.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating which includes 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 prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do. Also 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.

In conclusion, I prioritize clarity, logic, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas, engage with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, rather than personal beliefs or biases. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and grow as critical thinkers.

Conflict: I don't have any.

Contact: muideenpopoola1010@gmail.com

Cheers!

I'm a former university debater and currently an MD-MPH student-judge with 8 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged around 40 parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, Congress, and Big Questions. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

I love judging!