Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

Background:

Tawfique Elahi graduated with an MSc in Information Systems from Lund University, Sweden, and his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction and Artificial Intelligence.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he currently serves as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at 100+ debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on 25+ Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, 40+ Grand Finals, and chaired 25+ elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Tuloso Midway’ 22

UT CBHP’ 26

Hey, I’m Shreya Komire (she/her/hers). I did speech and debate for five years and primarily competed in CX, FX, DX, Informative, and Oratory (+Extemp Commentary in NSDA Supps). I have experienced a majority of speech and debate as I competed on the TFA, UIL, and NSDA circuits for a range of events.

For debate rounds: Please put me on the email chain: heyshre@gmail.com (to make it easier and organized: subject line the email: Tournament XYZ: Team AK vs. Team XK, Round #). I am fine with paper debate if that’s what you do, but please try and have copies for flashing. I don’t count flashing/emailing to prep time unless you spend an extended period of time doing so.

–My paradigm is influenced by: Chris O’Brien and Vada Janak.

Speech and debate was and is a very rewarding activity, but there are a few things I value.

• I expect everyone to not be racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, or have any hatred for any individual for their identity. Everyone has the right to themselves, so please respect one another. Be respectful and mindful of others’ pronouns too.

• Another thing, please be nice. I have been in so many different rounds, especially CX rounds, where debaters are too aggressive. Debate is meant for passion and aggression, but there is always a respectful way to do it. Don’t target one another as individuals, you are supposed to be debating arguments or ideals. Don’t belittle or degrade one another either.

• Enjoy yourselves! I hope everyone in this activity does it because they are genuinely excited to be in it. Have fun and remember your success goes as far as you take it!

If you have a question about anything, ask! I’m here to help you do well in the event, so if I need to clarify or missed something on my paradigm, please don’t hesitate to ask.

For debates, feel free to post-round me, I don’t take offense to it, I want you to get the best experience and critiques out of every round. I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

Policy:

Note: I did policy debate starting my freshman year, made three different TFA state appearances, and was the 21-22 UIL CX State Champion and received a top speaker award: I have a traditional/progressive mix, but I am not someone who lived and breathed progressive/K debate. I know and understand K’s/K Affs (in terms of literature and functionality, but I also don’t read K lit on a daily basis, so if it’s not the normal K’s, you may need to do some explanation), but am not familiar with PIKs. I am, on the other hand, well versed in traditional debate, anything with T’s, DA’s, and CP’s was my cup of tea. But also don’t feel like you need to adhere to my paradigm to the T, do what you do best and I’ll do my best to be right there with you in the round!

Evidence/Ethics Challenges: Not-so-good experiences are related to this, so please know exactly what you are calling someone out for and be ready to explicitly prove it. This is serious, not just for the team calling out someone else, but for the team that is getting called out. It gives them a moment to learn and understand if they truly didn’t know what was happening. Don’t clip or misrepresent evidence on purpose, that’s unethical and bad education/debate. I will take this challenge seriously, don’t use it as a route to a free win/clout.

Tech > Truth, unless an alternative framework is provided, but I hope if you are technically winning, you are also truthfully winning (but it doesn’t really affect my judging, just take it on face value: tech over truth).

I am a tab judge, but default policymaker unless told otherwise. Tell me how to view the round and how to vote in the round: write the ballot for me. Keep the debate organized, muddied rounds make everything more complicated than it should be for both me and your opponent(s), so signpost, slow down on tags, say “and” between cards, etc. I flow on paper, so speed is fine, but don’t overdo it. On a scale of 1-10, with one being incredibly slow, and 10 being extremely fast, I’ll rank at a 6/7 for speed. On analytic, theory, standard, or block debate (basically anything you don’t normally think to put in a speech doc), slow down a little to give me time to process the argument and flow too. But as a preference, just send me a speech doc with all of it in it, if you wish to do so. If you are worried about me keeping up with your speed, ask to give me a test run before the round, that way I can let you know.

I won’t evaluate a round-based off on CX, but I’ll definitely do my best to listen to it. I think the CX period sets up the upcoming speeches in some sense. Don’t talk over one another, don’t be rude, and don’t be condescending either.

Speaks: I did a number of speaking events and found lots of success with it. In policy debate, I hardly ever walked out of a room with under 28 in speaks, and always went for 30s (and I found a lot of success with that, with both speaker awards and even sometimes breaking merely because of high speaks). That doesn’t mean I want you to live and breathe being a perfect speaker, but I take importance in clarity of speech. I will evaluate speaks with as much rigor as I evaluate the actual debate part of the round. Although I won’t sit here and tell you debate is a communication event, learning and improving your speaking ability is what is most important in the real world, outside of debate, no matter what you are talking about.

Few more important general things:

1): explain the claim, warrant, and impact to every argument- this helps me evaluate a round as effectively as you want me to

2): be clear in your position, I debated a lot, but that doesn’t mean I know/understand every argument in existence: I’m confident in voting for politics DA’s and common T’s, CP’s, and K’s (ie. USFG T, States CP, and Cap K), but for something that is a nuanced case-specific DA, T, or CP, please explain.

3): a comparative analysis is important, that’s how I can weigh your argument

4): persuasion and passion matter too, it’s easier for me to vote for you if you are truly convincing me to do so because debating includes speaking as well

5): tell me how to vote in your rebuttal speeches especially, and tell me how and why you win

6): please mark your own cards, and send the doc if asked to do so

In-depth (Policy):

T’s-

I was a T debater (obviously read in tandem with other arguments), but T was always the easiest part of the debate round for me. As the aff, I would always jump at the opportunity to answer T and would sometimes solely talk about T in a rebuttal on the neg. I have full confidence in going for a T and winning the round, I’ve done it multiple times before, so because of that, I have full confidence in voting for a T in the 2NR. The same goes for a T against the K aff.

On the aff, I firmly believe T has 7-9 parts in its answer. I have watched teams take T as a joke and not answer it diligently and lose the round for something that can be answered effectively and efficiently. T should be answered with we meet, an answer to the violation, a counter definition, a counter standard for every standard provided, its own voters, and reasonability.

If you are going for T, it should be the only thing in the 2NR and be explained clearly without being unnecessarily repetitive.

Quality of definition matters, make sure your definition has the intent to define, is from a source contextual to the topic, and is specific to the topic at hand. It makes the debate more favorable for you and prevents an unnecessary time suck.

DA’s-

I loved PTX DA’s, and a majority of the neg rounds I have won were because of the PTX DA solely. Granted, DA’s as a whole can be and are a strategic argument in policy rounds. I am confident in voting for politics DA’s any day, given that you answered it or debated it properly. Aside from politics DA’s, I understand most DA’s pretty easy, but if it’s an incredibly nuanced DA, give a few sentences of explanation to make me and your opponents feel more comfortable in hearing it.

Case-specific links are always better to debate, but generics are perfectly fine and winnable too. Focus on the link debate, given that it inevitably shapes the winning status of the DA. That doesn’t mean ignore the uniqueness, as it is equally important. Explain internal links and show how the impact actually happens, not just because the cards say so in the tags. Say “DA outweighs the case” + your reasoning why, and on the aff say “Case outweighs the DA” + your reasoning why, it makes it easier for me to vote and more persuasive.

Turns case arguments give you an advantage in any round, given that you aren’t countering yourself and are reading them correctly. Turns case arguments don’t mean I automatically sign the ballot for the negative, but it’s a convincing argument.

Specific impact calculus is important to me in weighing your DA. Be as reasonable as possible and tell me why everything leads to nuclear war, not in a large-scale, not probable way, but in a specific scenario.

CP’s-

I am familiar with the common CPs, but tell me how the CP works, why it’s mutually exclusive, and how it solves the aff and avoids the DA, (talk about net benefits too). If there are multiple planks to the CP, explain the viability and importance of each one. For me to vote for the CP, if the aff doesn’t perm or give me a reason as to why the CP doesn’t solve, I’ll vote for it. Obviously, the perm debate is the most important with CP’s for me to decide who outweighs in argument. Feel free to give multiple perms, but unless the other team doesn’t attack any of the perms, consolidate in the rebuttal speeches to a perm.

I’ll kick the CP only if you tell me to. Unless told otherwise, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K’s-

Although I understand the fundamentals of this debate, I was not a K debater in high school. I occasionally debated K’s, primarily the Cap K. I am familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything besides that should be explained. I’ll try to catch on as quickly as possible as I have read K literature, I just never ran them in round aside from Cap and Neolib, although I have debated against them. K vs. Policy rounds are easier for me to judge because I have the most experience with these types of debates. K vs. K aff debates aren’t out of the blue for me, just not something I lived and breathed during my debate career.

If you are reading a K you think I might be unfamiliar with, I probably am, so explain the thesis of the criticism and how your K resolves the links presented. I vote on the K based on framework then the K proper. Don’t card dump or analytic/block dump in your speeches, be clear and efficient in your argument.

The link debate and alt debate frame how I view the K in the round. Tell me how the alt solves/happens, what the ballot does for the alt, and who engages with the alt. On the link debate, use resolution or case-specific links and tell me how each and every link actually interacts with the aff, not just saying “there are 8 links the aff doesn’t answer,” without being explicit about it.

Although I understand what floating PIKs are, I don’t quite fully understand how they function in a round just yet. So if floating PIKs are your thing, don’t pref me. I’m not a fan of them because I think they skew the debate and deck education/fairness in the round, but if you get away with it, I’ll vote for it.

Aff’s-

I love plan-based policy affs, as I am more familiar and understanding of how arguments interact with this type of aff. I read the EB5 aff on the immigration topic, Taiwan aff on the arms sales topic, Sentencing Guidelines and Secret Service on the CJR topic, and the Columbia River Treaty aff on the water topic (it’s obviously what I know best). I’m fine with K aff’s, but it comes down to the framework debate for me here. I have no problem voting for the neg on K Aff Bad T if the debate effectively leads me to do so. The framework debate is the debate I am most comfortable with here and is what I enjoyed the most. I’ll definitely need K aff’s to be explained more throughout the flow of the round and probably have them read at a slower speed. I am unfamiliar with performance affs completely, I haven’t interacted with one in a debate round for me to tell you to read one in front of me. I understand how they function, but I also do know they have a number of nuances to them too, so if you want to read performance, don’t pref me.

Theory-

If you have a legitimate reason to run theory, go for it. Don’t use it as a time suck, it makes the debate a drag. Having discussions about how a specific action detrimentally affects the debate space is a good thing. I’m fine with condo bad, especially if you are reading more than 3 counter-advocacies. My vote depends on the amount of in-round abuse happening. Be clear in interpretations and analysis.

Debate (in general):

Disclaimer: I have competed in World Schools Debate and Congress, but not PF or LD.

Practically everything in my policy paradigm applies here for PF/LD.

WSD-

I’ve had some experience in this event, but I only primarily competed in this my freshman year.

Style-

As an extemper myself, I’ll be focusing on the extemporaneous parts of this event more. Tone, persuasion, speed, and passion matter for you to maximize the number of points here. There’s no reason to spread in WSD or to be condescending or rude. Reading off of the paper does me nor you any good. Be personable and logical in your presentation.

Content-

Your analysis in tandem with your sources will determine your success in this area. Don’t source dump in your points, explain the viability of your argument, analyze the different parts of each point, provide credible definitions, and give specific/contextualized examples.

Strategy-

As any debate/speaking event goes, your strategical approach will take you far. Setting up your points effectively, asking POIs that help you, and explaining why you outweigh in your argument (why you win and they lose), give you the upper hand in the debate. Organization and logical approaches will help you take away as many points as possible.

POIs-

Ask as much as is necessary, don’t overdo it by interrupting your opponent every 15 seconds, but don’t let them talk uninterrupted for the full allotted speech time. Taking advantage of your opportunity will help you garner more points. Don’t ignore every POI, but you don’t have to answer every single one either. There is no reason to be rude in your POIs.

Congress-

Be mindful of your verbal and nonverbal language, be respectful, and have fun!

Speaking- Clarity comes above all for me, being clean and articulate in your arguments and general speaking will give me more reasons to rank you high.

Argumentation- I look for unique points of contention/support. Every argument you make should be evidentially true, sources only add to your credibility and persuasiveness.

Refutation- Don't degrade your fellow congresspeople's arguments, there is a way to refute the argument without targeting the individual or their abilities. Rebuttal the arguments and points the opposing side's representatives/senators make, and prove your viability.

Questioning- Ask questions, it establishes/maintains your presence in the room. As always, be respectful and polite when asking questions, there is no reason to be condescending or overpowering.

I hate rehash, please be as unique as possible in your argumentation…the round becomes a drag for everyone when everyone goes up and says the same thing for three hours.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

(I always looked for my judge’s paradigms for speech too because it helped me feel more comfortable with my judges and speaking, so if you are reading this, good luck!)

Note: Extemp was my primary focus during my junior and senior years. I was in state and large tournaments out rounds for FX and/or DX (TFA, UIL, NSDA), so I think I have a strong background and experience in it. I also coached extemp after I graduated.

I value analysis above all, I think the only way you prove your skills is with your knowledge of the topic. Don’t give me 7-9 sources and leave the speech at that, for every source, I look for a few sentences of analysis, that comes from you, as well. I’m not asking for you to tell me your opinion and political leaning, but dive deeper into the tagline of each source and tell what the background of “x’ issue, what the impact of that is, and how it affects “x” thing.

AGD’s and mini AGD’s make you more personable and charismatic. That doesn’t mean solely making jokes throughout the speech, but tell me something interesting, exciting, and/or surprising. Keeping my attention means I follow you through the speech and your other judges will likely feel the same way.

Clarity in your speaking style is the most important. When you are asked to form an answer to a contentious question, keeping the speech organized will make it easier for you to give and for me to follow. I suggest following a specific structure in every speech, and in prep just fill in the blanks to each part of the outline, that way you always become a clearer, stronger extemper. I will do my best to write as many critiques as possible on your ballot, there are always things to improve in every speech. Read those critiques and try to implement some into your next speeches, you’ll level up every time.

Speech/Interp:

Note: I did informative and oratory religiously throughout high school.

Info/OO-

Most of my extemp paradigm applies here. Be clear in your speaking style, be personable, and make your speech impactful. As any event in speech and debate goes, there’s always meant to be a moral, a story told, or an issue addressed, keep that in mind for your speeches. Although I take full entertainment in a speech about magicians, tell me why your topic/issue affects everyone, why it matters that I listen to this speech- basically, leave a resounding impact on me after your speech, it makes me more inclined to give you a higher rank. In terms of boards, I will not dock you for your quality of boards, your boards only add to your speech. Don’t rely solely on the boards, but instead interact with them.

Interp-

I was never an interper, but I am an incredibly techy judge. Your voices, emotions, binder movements (if applicable), physical movements, facial expressions, and attitude will determine how I rank you. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote you up because your blocking is good, it’s just cumulative. Don’t take it personally if I’m not crying during your performance, I’m not a crier, but I promise your piece will be impactful to me.

If there needs to be a trigger warning, please be mindful of others’ experiences and mention one. If you are questioning whether or not there should be, just put one in case.

Hello.

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any right now.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during argument presentation, attempts at rebuttals and cross engagements. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes. I also very much appreciate equitable and effective engagements to confrontations (rebuttals or questions).

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Simply put, following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math & Statistics + Data Science)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Events covered in this paradigm: Congress, LD/Policy, PF, Worlds, Extemp

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious preferences I have in this event.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is what that looks like:

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• Most importantly, I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy ig):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down a bit on anything that isn't on the doc

I aim to be a tab robot.

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE: I have not judged LD this season and especially not this topic so I'm very out of the loop with the contemporary meta of the topic. I know everyone says this but err on the side of over explaining.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, that's cool (although you probably will need to win FW)

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally, I feel like contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot to win for me. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative worlds > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my mind on this, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot more technical and extemporaneous.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks. I think rhetoric can also help with argument clarity.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity and adds no value to the round.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

My name's Fiona (she/her), Westridge '25. I mainly have experience in congress.

Hi to whoever is reading this,

I'm a first-year B.S. in Economics Candidate at The Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania who competed in Congress at the national level for 4 years.

Summary (if you don't want to read the whole thing): Flow is what gets you ranked, lay is what gets you the one.

Speeches: Solid arguments and round interaction are crucial to doing well and they're the baseline for getting ranked. Your intros and impacts, no matter how well-worded or well-delivered, don't matter if you don't have strong logical links and cards to prove that your impacts will even happen in the first place. After you've established this, in rounds where there are a lot of good arguments presented, having something like a good bar or intro, and especially cohesive speaking and round presence, is what will make you memorable. Someone who delivers their speech with confidence and clarity, perhaps adding in a bit of rhetoric, and has a strong argument will set themselves apart from everyone else in my perspective.

Ref/Weighing: Round interaction is key. You should almost always be refuting or weighing other people's arguments with your own. However, keep in mind quality doesn't equal quantity and that your refutations and/or weighing should be easy to follow. Group people's arguments together and respond in depth to it as a whole.

Questioning: Questioning won't be the difference between you getting the 1 or dropping the round entirely, in my opinion. I want to see you respond with confidence to questions after your speech. I won't pay a ton of attention to what is said, but I will notice more if you lose your confidence or someone successfully dismantles your argument. Additionally, once again, round interaction is key. Ask questions of other speakers.

POs: POs start at a 3 on my ballot and go up or down based on how the round goes. Run an efficient and organized round, lead the round through conflicts (too few speakers on one side, needing to flip, etc.), don't make an obscene amount of errors, and you will easily do well in my rankings. A few little mistakes that don't impact the flow of the round are okay in my book. We are all human, just collect yourself and move on, and I will too.

Other things: Don't be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped instantaneously. Be courteous, don't cut people off in questioning. But above all, have fun. Don't be afraid to show your personality in speeches or be passionate about a topic!

Good luck!! :)

For other speech or debate events:

I've only ever debated in Congress, and that's where the majority of my experience is. For debate, I'll (try to) flow what you say, but given that I probably don’t know much about the nuances of your event and will become completely lost if you spread or give any tech arguments, consider me lay. For speech, I don't know too much. As long as you are clear with the structure and the objective of the piece, I will do my best to evaluate you.

And to reiterate what I said above, don’t be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped no matter what event I’m judging.

My email is oceana@wharton.upenn.edu should you need to send anything or want to reach out.