2025 — Online, CA/US
PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
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:
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I'm a high school speech & debate competitor who primarily does speech, but I've judged a fair amount of debate.
In general, as for pace, I'm not big on spreading, I won't dock you off for it or anything, but if I don't hear a point you say, that's on you.
When deciding my ballot, I'll look back at the whole debate flow and compare what arguments each teams win/lose on, weigh, and give my final opinion. Your speaking skills are much appreciated, but I won't count that into my decision much, unless it comes down to it.
One thing I'm not too fond of is when some debaters claim that some tech will exist in the future "because innovation", so if you want to say that innovation will cause technological development and thus helps solve for an issue, make sure to explain why/how that innovation will occur.
On another note, if you want to run any progressive debate arguments, like kritiks, go for it, just make sure to explain how it connects back to the debate at hand, weigh it, and don't base it off of one weak link chain.
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.
- This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: email@example.com
- What is my experience level?
Here are my judging qualifications:
2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA
2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA
2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA
2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA
You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):
I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).
2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?
I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.
Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).
33. How do I take notes during the round?
I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.
4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?
Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.
45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?
1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.
2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.
3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.
4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.
56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?
Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.
67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?
In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.
78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.
89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.
Hi! My name's Sierra (she/her) and I'm a sophomore at UPenn studying Comms or International Relations and Consumer Psych in Wharton. I competed in PF and LD for 3 years in high school but primarily did LD. I also dabbled in extemp debate, big questions, extemp speaking, and congress. I have experience with local and some circuit debate and I've competed at the state and national level.
- Please do not spread your max speed in LD or PF. I can comprehend a faster than normal pace but if you reach full speed I will not be able to follow. Try to go 60% of your max speed if you're someone who spreads every round. Pleaseeee slow down for taglines/author names
- Please signpost and give roadmaps
- I truly believe debate should be a safe place. If you need any accommodations or feel uncomfortable in a round please please please send me an email (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- If you plan on reading heavy content in round please give a CW and let us know before the round starts. I'm ok with basically all heavy topics but a cw is always appreciated
- If you run/say anything racist, homophobic, or ableist you will not win my ballot
- I know debate can be stressful so just try to make the experience as pleasant as possible and be nice
I mainly did trad debate in high school and always appreciate a solid trad line by line debate with solid fw BUT it is cool if you run other things. Just keep in mind I am not as well-versed with K’s, narratives, theory, etc. so just make sure you explain what you’re doing well-- I should not have to fill in the gaps for you. Also, if your opponent clearly has no experience with progressive debate and you know this and still run something progressive your speaks will reflect that. Debate should be as educational as possible and when the round has a clear imbalance from the start it makes this hard.
- Tech>truth but things need to be warranted. If there's something that has 0 warrant and is just blatantly incorrect I won't vote on it
- If you and your opponents FWs are different give me a clear reason as to why yours is better BUT if the FW debate is close make sure you explain why your side can still exist and win under your opponents FW. This is sooo important because in order to determine the winner I will first go off of who won the fw debate and then who has the most offense under that framing
- I will keep a detailed flow and probably will pick up on dropped arguments. If your opponent drops evidence extend it in the next speech if you think it's critical to the round
- Giving clear voters at the end of the 2NC and 2AR is something I like and think helps a lot. Make my job easier and give a clear reason why you won the round
- If your 1AR is really poorly spaced but you pack a lot into the 2AR this probably won’t help you so just try to pace well (I know this can be hard). It's hard for me to evaluate off of a 4 second response to an entire contention
- I will flow the round and will miss dropped args
- Use cx to your advantage, it shouldn't be dominated by one side. I hate when people ask questions that start with "Do you agree that..." ask an actual question that pokes holes at ur opponents case plsss
- I value weighing throughout the speeches, not just at the end. This should include weighing impacts, harms, etc.
- Please crystalize the round at the end. Explain why you won and key things you won on
I’m probably forgetting stuff but if you have any questions just ask me before the round. If you have any questions about the ballot post-round feel free to email me or just ask then if you want if I’m allowed to disclose. Good luck!
background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.
tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.
i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.
creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.
i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.
i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.
i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.
if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.
this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.
don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.
especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.
weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first
the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.
i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.
average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.
well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.
I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.
- PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
- if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
- tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
- My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
- Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!
Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do
(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette
if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time
POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it
Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.
don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho
don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check
best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round
clash can GO a long way in this event
For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.
gestures are neato, but don't go bananas
witty banter is a plus
I only judge congress in person not online
NEVER wants to Parli a round
if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person
tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth
I better see clash
if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!
When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions
I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links
I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech
I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!
Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision
FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)
Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns
Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it
I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross
When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis
^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T
I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall
Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful
Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"
take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc
Tech > Truth (most of the time)
links can make or break you
value/criterion - cool
P/CP - cool
stock issues - cool
K - cool
LARP - can go either way tbh
Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike
never assume I know the literature you're referencing
I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything
look at LD above
PLZ send a doc
I expect to see clash
no speed, this needs to be conversational
don't paraphrase evidence/sources
STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round
not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1
^ don't take on too many - it kills time
don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated
the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed
as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration
Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues
I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.
May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!
Tobi is a student sometimes, a part-time oceanographer and an amazing adjudicator every day. If there is anyone to be referred to as one of the faces of adjudication in Africa, Tobi is one of your go-to people. With over 60+ breaks in tournaments, you can think about, Grand-Final and Semi Judge at about 25 including, PAUDC 21, Western IV 2022, and IIT Bombay 22. He has served as Language Officer at Campbelltown Australs, NEADC 22, SANUDC 22, and was on Appeal for Madrid WUDC 2023. He is the absolute definition of excellence meets hardwork. He is also the first West African to judge the Quarter-finals of the World Universities Debating Championship, Belgrade 22, talk about awesomeness. He was on CAP over 10+ tournament including, RRAC 23, Kampala Open 23, Debate A+ 23, Uganda National Team trials, Zimbabwe National Team trials and, Jozi Open, others. Outside of the debate room, Tobi is that sweet and soft guy you want on your corner everyday of the week. Always willing to help however he can.
I do have some speech and debate experience.I'm not lay but also not super technical
Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me.
Here are my some preferences -
Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you typically speak quickly, then adjust your speed to match my judging style. If I am unable to follow your arguments and comprehend what you are saying, then you will not be successful in the round.
I prefer arguments that are backed by empirical evidence, rather than those that rely solely on emotional appeals. You will not win the round by trying to persuade me through an emotional argument.
I appreciate a well-planned and logically sound case. I prefer to see a clear connection between your points and ideas.
While I am capable of taking notes during the debate, I may not be as skilled at doing so as someone who judges Public Forum Debate (PFD) regularly.
It is important to remain respectful during the debate. While assertiveness is acceptable, actions such as screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head-shaking, and showing contempt are not appropriate. Even if you win the round, you may receive a low score if you display such behavior.
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)
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.