Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Hey!

My name is Agezeh Victor (He/Him). I am a student at the University of ilorin, Nigeria. I am a debater with judging and speaking skills in British Parliamentary debating style (BP), World school Debating Championship (WSDC), Public Forum (PF) and Asian Parliamentary (AP)

Conflict: None

Email: agezehvictor2@gmail.com

As a judge, I appreciate when speakers engages the burden of an argument and also attack the argument as it relates to the debate, speaking in a manner that allows your point be understood and not missed.

Also, I expect every individual with debating interest to read the judging and speaking manual so as to know the rules and also to know what is expected of them in each motion.

Furthermore, speaking isn't just about the eloquence of the speech but also about point engagement and burden fulfilment.

Time keeping is very crucial and everyone should keep to time.

Since it an online tournament, ensure to mute you mic when it not your turn to speak and un-mute when it is yours, do not interrupt others when they speak.

I have 12 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. I then competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at UNR. I am versed in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. However, if you need accessibility, I also understand.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

--------------------------------

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format or LD (Value Net Bens through Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in. Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other.

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Perf, T., Theory, etc.) but be inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Be nice to each other.

--------------------------------

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years for UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and plan on flowing on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the undercovered one. However, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: Competition block. Is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADV of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

I was a public forum debater for three years at George S. Parker High. I am also not a Senator in any capacity.

Tabula-rasa, within reason. This is, however, not an invitation to insist that I buy your squirrely arguments.

Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, do not spread. If you speak above 200 words per minute, know that I will ignore you.

Show grace, patience, and charity to your opponents. Address the best possible interpretation of your opponents argument.

I like the existence of framework, but I especially like framework that is meaningfully discussed and implemented.

Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones. Anything above three contentions is absurd, but one or two is ideal.

Flow judge, but uncarded analysis is totally acceptable and often preferred to mangling evidence for the sake of narrative.

Crossfire should be questions and answers, back and forth. Questions end with a question mark, and are not accusations.

The summary should contain all offense and defense you intend to weigh in final focus.

Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you are able what weighing you are winning.

In final focus, specifically enumerate the voters of the round. Yes, that does mean you should tell me which ones you are winning.

ONLY if you want to (._.) Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.

*christianjamesauthor02@gmail.com*