Several things that I prioritize on the PF debates, are :

1. The elaboration and further analysis regarding the facts (general idea, data, statistic, journal info) that given by each team. It means that what things that has been proven, the urgency, the significance related to the resolution of the debate within those facts.
2. The team that likely to give the likelihood of the impacts that will occurred, in short-long-term timeframe and the engagements throughout the refutation of each opponents' argument.
3. In particularly, please respect each other and convey the speech clearly and not too fast.
4. lastly, have fun and good luck for the debates!

I am committed to always being a fair judge in debate competitions and ensuring that the evaluations are based on the arguments presented and the rules of the competition. I shall maintain impartiality and avoid any form of bias towards any particular debater or team. I shall be well-versed in the rules of the competition, including the format, structure, and criteria for evaluation. This will ensure that all evaluations are conducted consistently and fairly based on the content of the arguments presented, rather than the delivery style or personal beliefs of the debaters. The quality and coherence of the arguments shall be the primary criteria for evaluation. each debater is given equal time to present their arguments and the time allotted for each round is managed effectively to allow for a fair evaluation of all arguments. I shall ensure that the evaluations are consistent and fair and treat all debaters with respect. I will strive to create a positive and inclusive environment for all participants.

In Public Forum Debate, I will priotize for those who have better explanation and justification (why or how) in their case. It means that not only I credit the evidence, but also the explanation of what debaters can or want to do with that evidence. It would be nice if debaters could explain the likelyhood of their case in term of utilizing the evidence. Debaters might want to explain the exclusivity of their value and how it would happen in your side of the house.You might need to be clear about the clashes in your side of the house so it would be easier for me to see the holes you poke in your opponent's case and how you rebuild your own case. Note that I will only judge and take notes based on your speech (I won't step out of your case) so it would be cool if you could choose your wording wisely and give the step by step of your value to be justified to make sure that we have mutual understanding so I could give proper credit to your case.

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech. I also wont yell clear.

In public forum debate, i will prioritize the student's cappability in creating further analysis in regards to the fact and material that they deliver to the speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know step by step process as how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttal and responses are better to not one liner and have deeper reason. I expect a debate where student can cite factual and scientific resources such as journal or papers.

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

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.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily in PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Hey, I debated PF all four years of my High School so I am a flow judge but I value pretty speaking as well. Sneak in some clean rhetoric that'll make the speech more enjoyable and I'll award good speaks. I love listening to rhetoric lol but don't fill up your entire speech with it. (you can still get 30 speaks w/o rhetoric so dw)

I hate theory and any style of debate that extends out of the normal scope of PF, I prefer to hear a normal debate. If you read theories, Ks, or anything like that with me, I am likely to down you. I despise spreading more than anything. If I can't understand you, I can't up you. I also flow all rounds so make sure you are signposting.

Rebuttals can either be line by line or grouped- if you are grouping just say what your grouping. Both summaries have to mention and extend cards from rebuttal if you want to use them in ff, if they are not mentioned I will not flow them and they will be dropped in ff.

Weighing and impact calc are super important, show me why I should vote for you and explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. Give me a clear voters.

If you guys want to share evidence in the middle of round, set it up before round- I'll look at cards at the end of the round if you ask me to. I'll probably give oral critiques if time permits and disclose at end of round.

also time yourselves and time your own prep I won't be doing any of that.

This is my first time judging PF debate and english is not my first language. But no worries I've several experiences of judging competitions in other system. During rounds, I would appreciate debater could speak a little bit slower. I'd prioritize student's capability in creating their analysis and materials that they give during their speeches. Furthermore, giving facts and step by step analysis on their argument would be great rather than just throwing facts only. Rebuttal and responses with deep analysis to prove why your side is better compared to another is better. The win teams would be a team that can explain their analysis with facts followed with impacts that materialized in their speeches and may be impactful for us in the future.

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

a. cogent logic first and then data

b. clear speech first and then speech speed

c. prove your case and make the comparison

Good luck!

Maintain debate decorum at all times. Focus on weighing and impacts of your case. Please speak clearly and try to keep in mind the timings of all speeches. Focus on cross fires because that sets the tone for the entire debate. Asking strategic questions key. All your impacts and claims should be backed by evidence (try not to paraphrase).

All the best !!

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Please no spreading! Be concise and clear. Ultimately what decides the round is how cohesive the team is and the unified voice. Also how you attack your opponents contentions.

I appreciate debaters who are able to analyze their arguments and datas beyond simply quoting. Step by step analysis is very important as it will strengthen one's arguments or evidence

About Me: I have been actively involved in debating, primarily in the BP and AP systems, since 2019. My coaching journey began in 2021, focusing on BP, and extended to AP in 2023. Additionally, I have served as a judge in several BP Debate competitions since 2022 and six Public Forum Debates since 2023.

General Approach to Judging:

My judging philosophy revolves around meticulous evaluation and fair assessment. When assessing arguments, I prioritize a comprehensive elaboration of the points made, and while I give due credit to assertions, a thorough explanation of the reasoning and process behind each claim is essential. Furthermore, I emphasize the significance of relying on credible and legitimate sources, such as journals and scientific research, to support data, evidence, or study cases.

In response to opponents' arguments, I encourage debaters to provide clear and concise explanations on why an argument may lack validity. This involves showcasing why the anticipated outcome might be contrary to what is asserted or effectively addressing the best-case scenarios put forth by the opposition, always maintaining a tone of politeness and respect.

A critical aspect of effective debating is the ability to compare and clash arguments. I look for debaters to convincingly demonstrate why they believe they are winning in their concluding speeches. Structuring the speech is equally crucial, and I appreciate debaters who employ road-mapping and signposting techniques to enhance the overall organization and clarity of their speech.

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

Aaron Kim (He/They)

UChicago Lab '22

Emory '26

debate.ajk@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Follow the flow
• Include judge instruction
• Little to no topic knowledge
• I generally decide debates quickly---this is not a referendum on the quality of the debate
• You have to stake the round if you make an ethics violation

Specifics:

K Affs / FW: I’ve been on both sides and don’t have any strong opinions. Fairness is generally an impact but obviously needs an explanation for why it is such. Both teams should have explanations for how the ballot resolves offense. More persuaded by technical execution than grandstanding about why debate is bad.

T: Probably the area of the topic I've done the least research. Strongly tech over truth, will vote for any T interp or against any T interp given sufficient evidence comparison and impact calc. Fine for reasonability and PTIV.

K: I've read a lot of K's, from a slew of identity K's, post modernism, etc. The negative should commit to a 2NR that either is a fiat K or uses K tricks in order turn case and outweigh.

CP: No hot takes, probably more likely to vote for Process CP's than most. Affs should impact out each deficit and compare it to the net benefit. I don't judge kick unless told.

DA: No hot takes, I think turns case is underutilized when you don’t have case defense and will vote aff onanalytics against dumb DA's.

Misc:

I rarely read cards and probably care less about cards than the average judge.

I’m usually tired when judging, so the less wasted time, the higher speaks will go.

The more cards with the initials "DKP" you read, the higher speaks you get.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Maintain debate decorum at all times. Focus on weighing and impacts of your case. Please speak clearly and try to keep in mind the timings of all speeches. Focus on cross fires because that sets the tone for the entire debate. Asking strategic questions key. All your impacts and claims should be backed by evidence (try not to paraphrase).

All the best !!

live, laugh, love <3

My email is mart4516@umn.edu

Please note if I do not respond immediately just continue to email till, I respond. I promise you are not bothering me. I assist several professors and so sometimes it will get buried fast. Please tell me which tournament and what round and any specific questions you have for me.

I have a Finance degree. I did a lot of classes in international relations and business, so I have a solid base knowledge on the world economy.

I did High School Policy and recently have been helping a few schools in Congress and LD. I did not debate in college which means all of my thoughts are from before the pandemic so take it with a grain of salt.

I am a pretty expressive judge. You will know how I feel about certain arguments.

Congress:

I am an experienced Parli judging at TOC level tournaments. I do evaluate P.O’s in my breaks for the round. I do value the round being moved fast and efficiently. Typically, I allow 1-2 mistakes per hour of debate. I am more lenient at the Novice and Middle School level.

If the chamber constantly breaks cycle this will affect the entire chamber, you should be prepped on both sides of bills. We are asking you to roleplay which may mean defending positions you are not comfortable or do not align with your personal beliefs.

Does your speech flow?

Is your hook generic?

Do you read off a paper?

Are you robotic?

Are you repeating points already made?

Do you move around the room?

Do your points make sense? (If you are doing a company takeover does your bill actually allocate enough funds)

TOC BID SPECIFIC:

Please show me that you want it. I expect you to be prepped for both sides of the debate. Please expect me to evaluate every part of your speech as given above. I will evaluate P.O’s but at this level I expect you to be nearly flawless in the round.

My favorite hook has been “In an effort to keep Parli Martin’s blood pressure down.” I love a little banter with your judges.

Trust me, this is just as awkward for you as it is for me.

My debaters will tell you that I am not nearly as scary as I seem.

POLICY:

I don’t swing one way or another on mechanics or types of arguments. I dislike poor argumentation.

I did mostly K's during high school, that being said I will vote on topicality as an apriori.

Please for my sanity have an alt that is clear, if it is from an unreliable source I will question the validity of the alt.

If you are going to run a theory argument there has to be in round abuse or at the very minimum a clear link to the ballot.

For speaker points, I care less about word economics and more on if you can get your point across. If that takes you 4 ummm, and a few pauses or if you can get it first time thats fine.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Email: ema3osei@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Debated at University of Pittsburgh

I think about debate strategically primarily. Bad strategy => bad decision-making => bad comparison => bad debate. Lack of argument comparison also generally means more of a focus on skill than arguments which makes for less substantive feedback which has a negative feedback loop on the quality of judging experienced by debaters and the growth of teams themselves in my view. Substance is cool even when the substance is literally just about the meta-game.

I like judging different things, there are many different styles and many get overlooked or forgotten, so do your thing and do it well. I have a higher threshold for how you answer presumption in rounds without a plan and will filter a lot of the debate through solvency.

I'm typically more interested in a K that has offense either about the consequences of the plan or the consequences of the process but if you can win your overarching thesis claim outweighs plan/method focus, then go for it. The whole point of a K is to disagree with the assumptions of the affirmative so I don't understand the turn to agree with the affirmative's assumptions about how it should be evaluated vis-a-vis their various interps.

If you have a K that fundamentally disagrees with the epistemic starting point of the affirmative, then the latter part of the prior statement probably applies more than the former two even if you do have an embedded impact turn to the affirmative considering you likely have epistemic disagreements on starting points that inform what counts as an impact turn and also how to evaluate it comparative to other arguments on the level of uniqueness.

I don't have any specific feelings about framework as long as you're doing impact comparison. Regardless of whether you are winning a procedural or a terminal impact, it doesn’t really mean you auto win unless you have effectively zero’d/excluded all the opposing team’s offense, so offensive applications of impacts matter, if only from a strategic point of view.

Everything else is pretty round-by-round, please pic out of things, use theory intelligently and capitalize on mistakes and cross-examination early. Things may be unfair but unfairness can be justified or argued to not be unfair if a team lacks core justifications against competing claims to uniqueness/barriers to effective implementation. Same reason the neg gets to exclude the entire aff from evaluation if they win the procedural comes before aff offense.

Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change the fact that you're still a debater doing debate. Every round is different and every debater debates/interprets arguments differently, so don’t switch up. Popular opinion (in debate) rarely matches reality anyway.

Please think about what is your strongest argument instead of ones that are superfluous, waste time, are unfamiliar to you, or otherwise have no strategic value. I try to give good speaks, but rarely super high. I prefer debates with fewer sheets. Don’t spread faster than is comprehensible and prioritize clarity. Make it make sense.

A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive. Micro-aggressions exist but so do mistakes. Your standard for how to engage them is likely biased and/or strategic. The easiest way to engage is to be a less than terrible person. If you have to worry about that you have more personal work to do.

Anyways, see ya~

Greetings, debaters. I'm Anushikha, a 3rd year law student, and I've been associated with the activity of debating for some time now. I've judged several zonal and national qualifiers for the good people of AugLi Future Academy, and I'm super stoked to be judging the 37th Stanford Invitational this time around!

Following are some of my judging credentials -

1) RV Pre-ABP Debate Tournament - 2022 - BP - 5 in rounds chaired - NF Chair/OGF Panellist - Best Adjudicator 2) IIT Guwahati PD - 2023 - APD - Invited Adjudicator - 4 in-rounds chaired - Open Semifinals Chair/OGF Panellist - Highest tabbing IA
3) IIT Bombay BP Debate - 2022 - BP - 3 in-rounds Chaired - Open Semifinals Panellist - Overall 2nd Best Adjudicator
4) IIT Bombay BP Debate - 2023 - BP - 5 in-rounds Chaired - Open Semifinals Chair/OGF Panellist - Overall 4th Best Adjudicator
5) Derozio Memorial Debate - 2022 - 3v3 Australs - 4 in-rounds Chaired - Novice Finals Chair, Open Grandfinals Panellist - Overall 2nd Best Adjudicator

I don't have too many words of advice, so I'm just gonna say this much - don't take things too seriously, focus on making it a fun, and memorable experience for yourself. Debating is an activity that's supposed to bring utility to you, and not the other way round. Wins are great, and losses don't define you in the slightest. :)

In judging a debate, I weigh the claims by whether it supported by two kinds of reasoning: 1. why the claim is true, and 2. why this claim is important in the debate. "Claims" applies to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes in my flow later. Also, providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily means your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research that can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example important to the debate as a whole.

Howdy,

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

Congress:

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

PF:

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"

LD:

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

CX:

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

Worlds:

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

Overall:

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!!

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

I believe that debate provides a valuable platform for developing critical thinking, research, and communication skills.

As a judge, I value clear, concise, and well-structured arguments supported by strong evidence. I also appreciate your ability to critically analyze and interpret the evidence. Show me how you have evaluated sources and identified their strengths and weaknesses.

Treat your opponents and the judge with respect throughout the round. This includes avoiding personal attacks, inflammatory language, and disruptive behavior. Even in disagreement, maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the rebuttal. Additionally, I appreciate respectful engagement and insightful rebuttals that address the core issues raised by the opposing side. Do not just attack, offer alternative interpretations or counter-evidence to strengthen your own case.

Speak confidently, clearly, and at an appropriate pace.

Dear debaters,

Welcome to this debate round! As the judge, my role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine the winner based on the quality of those arguments. Here are some key points that will guide my evaluation:

1. Clarity and Communication:

• Clear articulation and effective communication of ideas are crucial. Make sure your arguments are easy to follow and understand.

2. Content and Substance:

• Focus on providing strong, well-researched content. Cite sources where necessary to support your claims.

3. Relevance and Significance:

• Arguments should be directly relevant to the resolution and should contribute significantly to the debate.

4. Logic and Reasoning:

• Your arguments should be logically sound. Avoid fallacious reasoning and ensure your points are well-structured.

5. Clash and Refutation:

• Engage with your opponents' arguments. Address their points directly and provide strong counterarguments.

6. Fairness and Sportsmanship:

• Treat your opponents with respect and maintain a courteous tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks.

7. Time Management:

• Keep track of your speaking time and use it wisely. Be sure to allocate time for crossfire and rebuttals.

8. Adaptability:

• Be prepared to adjust your arguments based on how the debate unfolds. Flexibility can be a powerful asset.

9. Impact and Weighing:

• Explain the broader implications of your arguments and how they relate to the overall resolution.

10. Final Focus:

• In your final speech, crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why they lead to your team winning.

Remember, the goal of this debate is to engage in a constructive and informative exchange of ideas. Best of luck to both teams, and let's have a great debate!

Hello,

I am Monali (PhD, Health Economics). I am an enthusiastic parent of a middle school debater. I will look for honest, clear, and concise opinions. Debaters’ mannerism in presenting themselves is important to me. I will give points based on the content, presentation, preparation, organized rebuttals, and background research. I would prefer if the debater can pace themselves and not rush through the content. I can follow a clear speech with decent speed. Speak at a pace that will allow you time to say what you want. Be respectful and sensitive to other team members’ opinions. Use vocabulary that is easily understood with clear diction. And most importantly, learn and have FUN!

~~~

Hey I'm Rohan and I did LD at McNeil and TFA qual'ed + broke on the circuit. Policy @ UMass Amherst since Fall 2023. I was coached by Dominic Henderson & Phoenix Pittman. My views on debate were more influenced by my peers when I was debating, notably Anshul Gulati and Karthik Jayakumar.

Tech>truth but truth probably helps, tabula rasa will vote on anything that's properly warranted and extended probably except for pro s/h things. Absolutely no judge intervention except for incredibly rare special circumstances (like when whole pieces of offense are conceded on both sides). Add me to the chain rosthanu@gmail.com I'll be both listening to you and looking at the doc to make sure I don't miss anything. Don't adapt to me, adapt to the opp. pls send your docs as a .docx not pdf

pref shortcut for LD/CX + thoughts—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] t/th, larp

• theory strongest area of understanding fr. I default DTD, C/I, & yes RVI. c/i = offense & reasonability = offense. pls include paradigm issues. pls pls make "X voter">K/case implications. metath is an underused hype strat. if standards/paradigm issues are cold conceded just extend one warrant for each, it's part of collapsing. I will vote on any theory shell but the worse the shell the lower the threshold I have for responding to it. friv theory doesn't exist. note perm competition isn't something i grasp too well, you can go for it but make sure to explain it really well. if you have me in the back of the room for policy i'm way way more inclined to vote on theory than most other cx judges from what i gather.
• larp anything flies with me. i love politics disads, read them a lot. knowing your evidence is key in this debate. though i love 7min impact turn spam, don't go for really bad impact turns (racism good etc). don't concede your impacts. i don't lean any which way on condo. remember to win fw so that you have offense.

[2] kritikal

• kritikal ran mostly cap/setcol/hauntology/security/reps in hs and have p good understanding of other structural k's and the more popular idpol k's. i don't care if i know what the alt does unless your opp points its incoherence out. in other words if your alt is ass but no presumption args are made i'll still vote on it if it goes extended given there's some explanation of how the alt solves even if it's really bad. don't buzzword extend.

[3] phil

• phil/fwk ran rawls/butler/young the most in hs but again i mostly read util/th. if you're reading a really dense framework case explain it well to me. permissibility/presumption usually negate. i'll vote on tjf's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ask me if you'd like anything clarified before round!

Please signpost, weigh, order layers and give me voters.

Speaks: Go as fast as you want, I’ll 99% of the time catch everything so long as you’re not outspreading yourself and not being clear at all. Just try to adapt to your opponent ie if they're trad I don't think your strat should be to outspread them. Your speed won't effect speaks, your clarity might, and your strategy/round vision will. If you deserve to break you should be getting >28.5 from me. If you’re mean to your opponent or say smt mean I won’t vote against you unless your opponent makes it a voting issue out of it but you’ll probably get <27.

PF: i appreciate the accessibility of this event and what i'll allow will prolly be contextual to the round. if for whatever reason i'm judging elims at a circuit tournament i'll rock with th/K. if i'm judging a local and your opps are clearly not too comfy with arguments other than stock larp your speaks will probably hurt and my threshold for responses will be six feet under. most pf'ers ik are excellent speakers so while i'll vote for whoever's winning on the flow my criteria for assigning speaks might be more oriented to speaking skills.

speaking events: 60% content 40% delivery tbh since I come from a debate background. if your speech don't make sense but you're a really good speaker you'll get ranked 2 max. make sure your AGD isn't cringe.

~~~

tldr i'll pull the trigger wherever you want me to, just debate well & you should be good.

"live laugh lose lose learn" - merina joseph

"wtf is a kilometer rahhh" - nithya challa

"gotta flow" - karthik jayakumar & rohan sthanu

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

she/her

"topshelf"

I debated on the NatCirc every year in HS under Canyon Crest with various partners

Post-rounding is encouraged -- I love yapping but understand that's not for everyone

Include me in email chains: michisynn@gmail.com

Any racist / homophobic / sexist, etc etc argument will earn you a loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give at the tournament. This should go without saying.

TLDR

• I vote on what's in summary and FF
• I'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
• winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round ????
• warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
• I generally give high speaks (28.0 +)
• I am bad at judging prog but will if I have to
• All of the suggestions below are based on my personal debate style. I would never punish a debater for not reading my paradigm or debating exactly like me. Just please have fun and learn something!

ROUND LOGISTICS

• Keep evidence exchanges quick. Set up an email chain before round. Yes, I want to be included.
• No skipping Grand Cross for prep because a) you should be budgeting your prep wisely and b) grand cross is funny
• For online debate, I am generally very sympathetic towards technical difficulties, so PLEASE do not take advantage of the format to steal prep / generally commit abuses
• Send docs if reading 250 WPM + (normally I judge MS so I will be confused if you do this LOL)

CONSTRUCTIVE

• Make your internal links crystal clear, especially if you are terminalizing to nuke war or extinction
• Send a doc if you are speaking 250+ WPM
• I am completely fine with paraphrasing, as long as you can provide the cut card to check back for abuse

REBUTTAL

• Signpost clearly
• Number responses if possible
• Implicate responses well rather than just reading debate jargon
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline (respond to the 1st rebuttal's attacks on your case)
• Let me know when you're going to their case if you are a 2nd rebuttal speaker

SUMMARY

• You must cover in some way, shape, or form: offense, defense, frontlining, weighing. I don't care in what order you do this, but these components must be in summary.
• High level weighing with good warranting is very strategic
• Please extend your entire link, internal link, impact (and uniqueness if that's important to the topic)
• On their case, 2 implicated responses >>> 4 unimplicated responses. Also, defense is not sticky.

FINAL FOCUS

• Collapse in this speech if you haven't done so already
• In my opinion, this speech should be heavy on big picture analysis and weighing, but as long as you cover their case, your case, and weighing you should be good.

PROG

• My opinions on this are very brief because I have limited experience with prog.
• Framing --> Run it well. Provide well researched and well thought out warranting as to why your impacts are more important, not just "education," "we brought it up first," "discourse"

• Theory --> No friv theory PLEASE. Logical analytical responses >>>> brain dead circuit responses (like the theory baiting response). Theory comes before substance b/c it's prefiat so I would suggest narrowing the debate to theory after the constructives (or whenever it's brought up)

• Ks --> I strongly dislike topical Ks because the alts are vague, but feel free to run one and I will up you if you win on the flow. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about nontopical Ks. Again, I will up you if you win on the flow.
• Regardless of what kind of K you are reading, please make the lit accessible during the round. If someone asks you about any of the "isms" in cross, please provide a basic explanation rather than spouting off buzz words. Debate is ultimately an educational activity.
• Also, please provide TWs if you are reading graphic depictions of violence and give the opposing team a document with the offensive / violent language blurred out. Warning people ahead of time is in my opinion never a bad thing and allows people in round to mentally prepare for what they are about to hear. You can still read your advocacy -- I would not want to limit or censor debaters.

• Tricks / High Theory / Friv Theory / anything strange and peculiar --> I am not the judge to run this on. Read this on Justin Wang and Derek Song :3

Ask me any questions before the round and please reach out if there were issues in the round / at the tournament! This activity is really important to me, and it's critical that debaters feel safe and confident.

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed, however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 7ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

Hello there!

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.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

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. 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.

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know the step-by-step process as to how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited. I expect a debate where students are able to cite factual and scientific resources such as journals and papers which has gone through scientific methods and researches rather than newspaper or website, although I wouldn't penalize you just because you cite them because they may also provide important facts and information. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

flow

cowardice will be punished

I strongly dislike offcase positions

every word that is unclear is -1 speaker point

I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD

Hihi, new judge and PF debater here!

If you have me as your judge: please, no matter what, do not go into political insults and racism/sexism statements because you will lose miserably with your speaker points at the lowest point I am allowed to give you. The results will stand that you lose even if you only said one accidental insult/offensive statement, no matter how good your arguments were or how crap your opponents are.

In other words, be mature and sensible people. Thank you.