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.

Harker

ireadrealarguments@gmail.com,baudrillard@googlegroups.com

Paradigms are subjectively informative, so take those information as how you will. For qualifications, I did lincoln douglas debate for one year, qualified to the tournament of champions reading every type of argument ever invented, and sometimes, not invented before. Just so you think I'm tabula rasa, I spent most of my time thinking about postmodernism, wipeout, process counterplans, and kant. My views on debate and how I debate has been influenced by Gordon Krauss, Evan Alexis, Nathan Wei, and Conner Shih.

The only thing you need to do to 'adapt' to me is to go for the position that you're best at. Technical execution and coherent round vision win debates. Judges who's RFD that includes language not present in the debate are contradictory to the existence of technical debate. I struggle to understand how intervention is educational or distinct from arbitrarily hacking for one team.

Arguments should be presented as early as possible. Late-breaking debates are frustrating, and invites intervention.

Arguments can only affect the scope of the round. My ballot is determined solely based on the technical execution on this round. Arguments that attempts to make me enter certain number on my ballot doesn't seem to make sense. This includes “30 speaks spike,” “evaluate the debate after the 1ac,” “no negative arguments.”

Give me pen time please. I am capable of flowing even some out-rageous clarity issues, I just need time between sentences. I have adhd and gets distracted easily, HELP!

After all, I would like to judge a good, in depth debate for the same reason why I prefer arguments presented as early as possible. I want to see smart executions, thoughtful research, and rigorous contestation that gives me some new view about debates. That means I’d rather see arguments that are brought forefront and ready to engage with contestation. Your points will be significantly higher, as I love a good debate. Nonetheless, I would never intervene.

Further thoughts below.

Planless Affirmatives

Technical debate is the way to win this. Big picture framing are insufficient and unpersuasive. I have no ideological pre-disposition against plan-less affirmatives, and went for them myself for the majority of rounds.

Against framework, the best aff argument is probably microaggression or the predictability k. Models debate is a lost art, and should be brought back especially when most teams on the circuit relies on docs and usually make terrible answers to them; although, if equally debated, models are unwinnable.

The negative should not be limited to topicality. If the aff undercovers any position, go for it. The capitalism kritik is having way less appearance in those debates, which confuses me a lot as it is a really strong argument.

Fairness is the best impact. The negative should settle on one interpretation for topicality debates, whether it is a question of models out of this round or resolving fairness violations in one debate.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework that moots the plan. I struggle to understand how critiques that use language of causation or are debated like counterplans can resolve the uniqueness question. Mutual exclusivity that applies to traditional opportunity cost are a non-starter for critical arguments, as some version of the sequencing permutation plus double bind zeroes the argument.

Framework interpretations that allows the affirmative to access the case while providing competition are unconvincing. Arguments about how this does not establish an opportunity cost or is too utopian are compelling. However, feel free to go for this argument. Most teams are horrible, both on the aff and the neg, when someone deploys a middle ground interpretation due to most blocks written in context of the extremes.

I am best for framework arguments that excludes the case or the kritik. I will decide the framework debate in favor of solely the interpretation in the round, not to arbitrarily assign some middle ground between framework debates.

Link debating is essential. Link turning case is almost always strategic. If the negative is not going for framework, the final speech should consist of several 'k tricks' that alone generates a negative win condition. You would be better off implicating win conditions as well.

Topicality

Offense-defense. Reasonability is a question of the counter-interpretation, not the violation. Competing-Interp makes logical sense, but reasonability is winnable if invested substantial argumentation with judge instruction.

Models needs a basis. Precision under a model that makes debate impossible is terrible. Debatability absent a predictable basis is also terrible.

Theory

Reasonability is under-utilized. It can serve as both offense and defense, depending on the implication.

Theoretical objections to counterplans are best in the form of competition debates. Anything else seems arbitrary to me as no theory interpretation provides a bright line of what counterplans violate. All counterplans have a process, a solvency advocate, and could result in the plan, no matter what is presented in the debate. You are better off going for competition with me.

Counterplans

Best for competition. I do not understand the opposition towards process counterplans, other than that they incentivizes docbotting. "Artificial" and "Non-Germane" seems like arbitrary concepts without brightlines, and I struggle to understand why strategies like this is less educational than any other argument.

Textual and Functional competition is a flaw of the plan focus model. Hypotesting/Truth Testing with arguments like actualism to exclude negative fiat seems strategic to me, especially in LD.

Judge kicking seems the most logical conclusion of conditionality, therefore I will do it. If the aff disagrees, an argument needs to be made before the final speech.

Disadvantages

Fiat resolving the link seems like a great but underrated argument. Both sides should define what fiat entails and how that implicates link arguments.

Impact calculus is necessary.

Best disadvantages include some portion of the link serving as a case turn in a vacuum.

Case

Commit to impact turns.

Case debate is under-utilized in LD. The negative should be capable of zeroing case every debate, if over 3 minutes was spent on case. That should be how you engage with affirmatives in-front of me

"Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice."

Philosophy

Good.

Implications of arguments and triggers needs to be made in earlier speeches. Judge instructions are necessary for questions like IFD.

Teams should learn how to defend utilitarianism. I'm confused about the low win rate frameworks have, and I attribute a large portion of that to judge protection that is purely interventionist.

Extinction outweighs is convincing but can easily be answered.

Justify framework as early as possible.

Tricks

I won't intervene. That's all you need.

Offense Defense.

Interpretations are arbitrary. "I evaluate debate all the time. After each speech I evaluate how good I think the construction of it is and think of the next speech." [EA]

Arguments needs impact calculus. Arguments needs a warrant and impact implicated in earlier speeches to be evaluated. Arguments needs judge instructions. With that, you're good.

If you think William Li does not legitimately own Kaison Maruyama, strike me.

speechdrop > email ->https://speechdrop.net

i read mostly policy arguments in high school, but am fine for every argument, as long as it has a claim warrant an d impact.

won't read that much evidence after the round unless it is flagged, there is ev comparison, or the debate is otherwise irresolvable.

1ar theory dta except for wherever its incoherent

competition ev in 1nc (ld)

will vote on everything. that does not mean every argument is good--easier to win "death is bad" than "the sky is green" but both are theoretically winnable

when do i judge kick:

if logically collapses to "cp = aff", no. e.g "US means 50 states" = aff is the states cp = avoids politics.

if collapses to "cp = potential way of the aff", yes. e.g "X policy includes exemptions" ≠ aff is Y pic, means pic could be a topical aff. BUT doesn't mean normal means for the aff is Y specific exemption, so still need to beat the net ben.

Lakeside '27

shiwenh09@outlook.com

Policy/T >>>>> K >>> Phil > K aff > Tricks

I don't feel comfortable voting on ad homs and I won't vote on tricks.

Defaults that can be changed w/ a sentence: judgekick, policy presumption, permiss negates, DTA (unless it's incoherent, like condo) and competing interps.

Policy

Best for DA & case 2NRs. Good for advantage counterplans. So-so for impact turns and dense counterplan competition.

Impact calc wins close debates!! Metaweighing >>

Better for spin on politics than most.

Counterplan competition evidence needs to be in the 1NC, or it's new in the 2NR.

Read and explain rehighlightings. Perm texts past perm do the counterplan/perm do both should be inserted in the doc, but do not need to be read in full.

T

Predictability probably comes first.

Good for grammar/Nebel 2NRs.

Framework

Fairness is an impact and probably outweighs.

Smart, built-out/carded TVAs >>

K

Probably not good for framework-heavy 2NRs.

I evaluate the debate based on the winning framework interpretation, not an arbitrary middle ground (unless it is introduced by either team).

Phil

Not good for phil unless it's substantive skep (antirealism, not external world skep).

Pascal's wager, moral uncertainty >>

My thoughts here come almost entirely from conversations with Ben Waldman.

Theory

2ARs against T/theory should extend the case.

Misc. thoughts

I flow on my laptop with the doc closed. I'll call clear three times before I stop flowing.

Prep ends when the doc is saved.

Cross and flex prep are both binding, I will flow them both.

"Yes RVIs" is a voter, not a paradigm issue.

Dropped arguments are true, but a true, warrantless claim still means nothing.

Zero risk only exists if arguments that say so are dropped.

Feel free to postround but please be respectful!

Please be nice & make the debate an educational, enjoyable experience for everyone :)

SuoDrills

Hw '27

kaison.maruyama@gmail.com

- Tech > Truth

- clash is the most important thing in a debate round. reading arguments that try to minimize clash is cowardly and not fun

- I really like lots of judge instruction and weighing in the nr/ar

- Be nice to your opponents and don't do anything offensive

- Please be clear!

- I like smart cx questions

- here is my wiki so you can see what I have read

- default judge kick

- perm texts should be in the doc

- rehighlights are legitimate

- concessions are truths

- i believe in zero risk

- tva/ssd are tko's vs k affs

- judge, not kaison please.

questions? email me!!!!

speaks:

Brain rot references +.1 (stackable)

haters: William Li (diss for speakerpoint boost based on how creative)

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.

Starting in 2025 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when I'm not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter-propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter-proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is essential or aligns with the debate's spirit. My evaluation of a good counter-proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Harvard-Westlake

soneaugust1@gmail.com

I will do my best to thoroughly evaluate the entire debate regardless of its content.

Loyola '26

Will add quotes from other paradigms that I like as I see them.