Lighthouse 4n6 Series Iris
2025 — Online, US
Debate Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMy 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.
I use any pronouns. I'm in my third year of university. Forgive me if I'm not caught up on the latest news. It's me and my matcha latte vs the entire world (pchem). Yippee! I used to compete in the Oregon circuit in high school. I learned everything debate-wise (except policy, but I understand the format).
Link to Google form for questions and feedback (for you and me). (https://forms.gle/ZKoVB94q46LToGn56)
Speech
Trigger warnings and content warnings are always appreciated. If you don't know the difference, please ask.
Debate Preferences (in no particular order of importance)
Please ask me if you have specific questions or would like clarifications.
- Please signpost and give taglines. I love a good line-by-line. I like referencing contention/disad/adv/etc number. It's easier to find than a word. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I will not be able to flow your argument the way you want it. Mild speed is fine. I will tell you if I can not understand you by saying "clear." Your opponents should also receive the same courtesy. I'm not a huge fan of off-time road maps because it's something you should not need if you're signposting. (Translation: I will be mildly annoyed. Want to annoy me more? Thank your opponents and me in your speech. Hot take: unless you're in the finals of an ultra-huge tournament (nats, TOC, etc), maybe you don't need to thank everyone.) Try me :D
- I am a flow judge. I will try not to evaluate you based on my knowledge and bias. I'm not going to be "tabula rasa" because I know that I will have biases, beliefs, etc that will affect my decision-making. (I'm human.) I will try to judge purely by the flow unless I cannot condone something. If your opponent says "The sky is green," my flow will say "The sky is green" until corrected with impacts. Also, just because I see your vision doesn't mean I will vote on it. If it's not on my flow, I'm not voting on it. I consider voting on the vision/potential I see in your case interventionism.
- For formats with cx, I don't flow that. If you find something significant in cx, please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it in my flow. The same goes for POIs in parli.
- Make sure I can buy your argument. Explain the impacts of your arguments to me using links. I LOVE good link chains.
- Theory-wise, if you think it's appropriate fire away. Honestly, I'm more likely to vote for on-case than off-case if it's justified and you're good about it. If you find a good reason to do off-case, go for it as long as you think I'll buy it.
- I love formal structure through a policy lens (taglines, planks of a plan, CPs, DAs, press, etc) and value (real-world impacts/natural policy consequences of valuing x over y). For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety," tell me what natural policy consequences will follow and the impacts of those consequences (e.g. deregulation).I also appreciate a clear framework (value/weighing mechanism), regardless of the resolution. If it's a policy resolution please have a plan on aff, or at least a specific approach to affirm.
- PLEASE TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. Not all points are made equal, so you should tell me why the points you won matter more than the points your opponent won (realistically you will not win every point unless you're a god). I love impact calculus.
- In terms of judging, I generally default to tallying up contentions using the framework provided in the round. If you don't give me any framework/win conditions, I'll go point by point on the flow. If you highlight the points of clash and why you're still standing, I'll weigh on those instead. If the round was a mess, I will either default to NEG on presumption or flip a coin. I have free will unless told otherwise, so do with that what you will.
- As a judge, I will try to protect the flow, regardless of the format. However, I'm human. If I see any new points that I cannot trace back to with little to no work, I will not vote on them. So make sure you're either super consistent with your wording or super explicit. NPDL: call the POO just in case I didn't catch it. For example, if the AFF does not explicitly have a plan in the 1AC in parli the AFF will not have a plan on my flow.
- If you're neg on a policy resolution, I love some good counterplans, disads, and/or a justified PIC. ✨Creativity✨
- Regarding evidence and cards for prepped formats, I'll only take those into account if you properly link them to your case and framework with analysis and impacts. Otherwise, those numbers and experts are just randoms on my flow. Like sparkles ✨ You can ignore everything after the sparkle if you're not in parli. For Oregon parli, I did parli without internet prep (even when I had internet prep); so I memorized current events and learned how to extrapolate reasonably: a lost art. Now that you know my parli background, I don't really care what evidence you have because your case should be logically sound. The Oregon Public (Parliamentary) Debate creators intended for kids to write logically sound cases from the kids' knowledge, not the knowledge of experts. I treat evidence from the internet like a cherry on top when linked and impacted properly. For California/NPDL, balance my preferences for prepped formats with Oregon parli (evidence not required).
- Feel free to give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!
- Please be respectful to everyone in your round! I don't like interventionism, but I will vote you down if you display any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. In the same vein, but also slightly unrelated, would you look at your mom that way? If the answer is "no," maybe you should reconsider how you're viewing your judge and your fellow competitors. Consider respectful gazes. Our actions have impacts. This goes for competitors and judges.
- Speaker points are arbitrary and I should not be the judge of your speaking style. If nothing bad happens, 30 speaks. If I feel like I should not reward you for certain behaviors (e.g. lack of signposting, decorum, etc), your speaks will be docked appropriately. For every single time I struggled to find you on the flow, .5 will be docked. (I NEED signposting.)
TL;DR: If you scratch my back (e.g. hold my hand as you explain your arguments, use formal structure, have a hefty link chain, and make my time flowing you easy), I'll give you 30 speaks. Or you could say you/everyone deserves 30 speaks in your speech/run 30 speaks theory on me. I'd be down to follow through on that. If you actually grab for my hand, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible and find your coach. Play your cards right, make sure my hands are tied (metaphorically), and have fun!! :D
Silly Shenanigans (totally skippable)
- "Omg, why is there a lot on your paradigm?" Because I want you to know who I am so you can either strike me, have me as a judge, and/or cater to me! Everything up there probably has a horror story origin. Some of it wasn't horror-story-level.
- Feel free to complain about me to your coach/team on the way home. Your complaints should've been channeled into the round.
- I used to give everyone 30 speaks until I realized I was rewarding people I didn't want to reward because they did some insensitive things/didn't signpost. Now, I give them out based on a mood basis in the range of 26-28 when I don't see proper signposting. So maybe if y'all could...yk, be decent...I could give y'all 30 speaks :)
JUDGE PARADIGM
NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI
AGE: 23 YEARS
CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.
DEBATE ETIQUETTE
Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.
DECISION MAKING PROCESS
During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.
I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.
SPEAKER POINTS
When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.
Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.
I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.