Hey everyone, if you're reading this chances are I'm probably judging you so here some things I generally value in rounds. This will mostly apply to WSD as it was my event of choice for 4 years.

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents

If this happens, I need reasons as to why I should prefer one interpretation over the other. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening.

Things that make my job easy:

• Clearly identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those clashes.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of layered rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/are better than your opposition esp. in the case where there are shared impacts which happens more often than not simply due to the nature of WSD.
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated.
• Be strategic. Don't carry down an unwarranted framing debate to the third speeches especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that ridiculous, I'll buy the ref coming from O1, it doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning towards it anyway. Don't overcompensate! Good judge direction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.

A combination of the aforementioned stuff is the best way to get a decision you agree with from me. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that you probably won't like.

I'm not super authoritarian when it comes to style. If I can flow it and you signpost you'll do fine. I think the most refined speeches are a combination of content, strategy, and style, but I’d pivot more towards content and strategy rather than semantics and rhetoric.

True Principle Arguments are fun to see in action but they need to be properly extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll just have a spot on the flow of a principle that was well established but poorly leveraged against other arguments. p.s. not enough to just say the principle matters more, there's need to be analysis i.e. if you're running a reparations argument examples of weighing line(s) could be:

• Practical benefits that place X group of people secondary are immoral because of the unique historical injustice committed against them (urgency)
• We ought to fulfill this principle because of this specific condensed harm that has affected a population for decades vs a marginal harm that affects people temporarily (intensity of harm)

all and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun

if you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

IE:

Extemp- The biggest thing I’m looking for is whether or not you’re answering the question and how you break down your response. Formatting in a way where it’s clear for me to understand the roadmap of your points is important. Points should flow together but be distinct enough to stand on their own. Content is more important for me because this is an event where presentation is usually the least difficult part and is something most people in the room have down. Lastly, being about to connect with your “audience” is something I rank higher for, for example, if it’s a question on economics and you’re able to break down terms, I value that more. If you can explain something, you’re clearly well-versed on it and a more reputable speaker, as opposed to just quoting an article.

Interp/Public-Speaking- presentation is so important, having energy in your voice and sounding like you want to be here/have passion for what you're performing goes a long way. The more likely I am to be entranced by your performance, the higher I am ranking you.

Debate:

WSD- I follow my flow so unless you directly say in argument, I’m not going to make the connection that PROP’s point A is a rebuttal to OPP point B. So if you decide to talk fast, do that at your own peril. Content and structure is important for flow for not just me but your team. How your team argues, whether as individuals or as a team, is something else I consider. Speaking is important but also that’s a default skill so with expectation that both sides are good speakers, content is most important. Bonus points for summary speeches that tie everything together and that are able to condense the round into three clashes but even more points if you weigh, (which should be given but just in case).

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Debate, Public Speaking and Interp Coach

In debate I like organized speeches, direct clash, weighing of arguments, strong practical and principle arguments. Style is important, so don’t spread…if I can’t flow, it makes it difficult to judge those arguments. Be respectful of your opponents and enjoy the opportunity to compete!

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.