Email Jororynyc@gmail.com
Perry Hs
UW
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.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: I think the neg should win why fairness outweighs whatever Disad the Aff has - The Aff needs to have a counter interp that defends a type of model of debate and what the role of the neg is.

Slow down and tell me how to evaluate the debate. 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.

Judging Paradigm – Lincoln-Douglas Debate

1. Framework Matters
- I evaluate debates based on the framework set by both debaters.
- If uncontested, I default to the Affirmative’s framework.
- If frameworks clash, I weigh which best upholds the resolution and provides the most fair and applicable standard.

2. Value and Criterion
- The Value should align with the resolution and be a legitimate goal.
- The Criterion must logically link to the Value and provide a clear way to evaluate arguments.
- I prioritize clash on how the Criterion functions rather than just rejecting an opponent’s outright.

3. Case Debate
- Clash is key—a debater must engage directly with their opponent’s case.
- I evaluate logical consistency, evidence, and real-world application of arguments.
- Extensions must be well-explained and impacted—if I don’t hear the impact, I won’t weigh it.

4. Weighing Impacts
- I weigh impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
- Debaters should explicitly tell me why their impact matters more.
- If weighing is missing, I default to the most well-explained and logically sound impact.

5. Speed & Clarity
- I am okay with speed but prioritize clarity—if I can’t understand it, I won’t flow it.
- Try to avoid spreading, but if you can't help it, clear taglines and signposting help keep the round accessible.

6. Speaker Points & Conduct
- I reward strategic thinking, engagement, and delivery.
- I deduct for rudeness, excessive interruptions, or poor conduct.
- Good persuasion and speaking style can boost speaker points.

7. Final Focus: Give Me Voters
- The best way to win my ballot is to give clear voting issues in the final speeches.
- Tell me why your case and framework should win in a concise and structured way.

Good luck!

Judging Paradigm – PF

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 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.

I prioritize students with a much structural speech and no one-liner arguments. A peaceful yet competitive debate with clear analysis of their points and arguments are what I hope in a debate round. I prefer a student who did their homework on what points should be bring and what not, a deeper analysis will be great even if it's a small points. And although I valued matters more than manners, manners does make a speech valuable.

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

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.

My email is mart4516@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to ask for feedback.

I've been judging for 7 years out of high school. I have judged TOC bid tournaments in CX/LD/PF.

I am also an experienced parli for Congress.

Most debaters will tell you I am strict but caring. I value debaters mental health and safety above all else but I also will move a round forward if debaters aren't on task.

Tournament Specific:

TOC Digital Series:I hurt my back this week.

Policy, LD, PF

TLDR:

I actually have zero preference on what you read. K, T, Theory, CP, DA's, I am fine with. I mix tech and truth. If the truth is common knowledge (9 out of 10 people on the street know) I will default to the truth, otherwise I will default to tech. I am fine with tricks in LD. You can run IVI's, RVI's really whatever and I will do my best to understand it.

Topicality:

Yes, I will evaluate this as an apriori. For the aff I have a reasonable threshold, if you gut check meet I will probably be fine with it, unless it is dropped. Aff's that reject the resolution I am fine with as well. But you do need to be able to debate the T debate.

K's:

I understand most economic based K's (Neolib, Cap). I have a good understanding of (Antiblackness, Orientalism, Feminism and Set Col). Some of the more "eccentric" K's, Baudrillard-esque, I will do my best to understand but you are much better off prefing a judge who has a background.

I am fine with an aff being K, try to explain why you are doing such though, which you should be doing anyways.

For my sanity, please do not assume I know your lit base. If you want to check if I do just shoot me an email and I will be transparent.

Theory:

Sure, run it. Disclosure, tech check, if it is in front of me I will have to evaluate, but please for the sake of me prove in-round abuse. Most of the time I default theory to being apriori or an IVI.

Misc:

I am very much a laid back judge. Spreading is fine, send me a speech doc, I will yell clear 3 times and then I just won't flow.

If it is a TOC tournament or a break round I am prone to do much less work for you in terms of impact weighing. If it is a novice round I will do much more work.

If you are winning or there is a clear experience difference (looking at you Open divisions) try to make it more educational for the other students.

If you are going to run 30 speaks you better have a reason. If it is to combat racial/gender equity issues or something similar I am prone. Otherwise you just wasted 1 minute running an argument that I will not evaluate.

Congress

Most of this is from the point that I am the parliamentarian, if I am scoring just read General

General:

Varsity/TOC: I expect you to be prepped on both sides of the bills. This is a debate activity, be prepared on both sides. If cycle is broken before the last speech I will take note, if you are able to jump in and switch sides you will rise in my ranks, I take note of sponsorship speeches, questions, switching sides, and other things. Even if you aren't selected for questioning I am aware of your participation in the round.

Nov/JV: I hope you had prepped both sides but if we have to break cycle it is not the worst thing. I am aware that this is new to you and I am here to support you much more than you think. Feel free to raise Point of Inquiry and ask questions.

PO's:

PO's if done well will rank in my breaks. I generally allow 1 mistake per hour. You will be evaluated on your ability to manage the chamber. I try not to intervene as much as I can, I am keeping track of your mistakes on my sheet.

If this is a novice/Middle School round, I will hand hold you through it if you need it. I want you to be successful. If there are no people I will help you by letting you view my Parli sheet. I dislike debaters who abuse POI when there is a new PO especially if they were forced/voluntold to PO.

Rule Violations:

I am fine with adjudicating evidence challenges, if the point is raised I usually default to contacting tab and pushing back the hard stop in order to accommodate the evidence challenge.

TFA:

While I have never debated on the TFA I am versed in terms of the rules specific to the circuit. If I make a mistake I will not hold it against a student to point of order me.

howdy,

former HS/Collegiate competitor

I judge quite a bit

• treat others the way you want to be treated
• I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
• if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not there's an L waiting for you
• FOR PF debate!!!- I don't flow off the doc, I only look at it for evidence (only if you tell me to, also no email chains for me..)
• somewhere in between truth and tech

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

^ very big on binder etiquette

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round for high ranks

clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you

direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...

I'm very big on the Public aspect of PF

love a good framework or Role of the Ballot round

no email chains for me, either google docs, nsda doc/drive or speech drop - if not oh well

if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it

evidence practices are pretty bad in PF, should you notice it LMK in speech and lets see what we can do

no speed/spreading in PF, talking fast is ok tho - speed/spreading and were gonna have a problem

tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess

^ gotta explain it , if not I am not evaluating

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated

good luck going for a technical knock out

the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof is

paraphrasing is a BIG NO, read actual cards/tags

I will no longer be evaluating Disclosure T as of March '25 -if you run Disclosure its an auto L

^ I will NOT be evaluating any Theory, Non Identity K's, Phil - auto L

^^ wanna run these? go to LD or CX

content in the LD section does not apply to this PF section - non negotiable

what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

stop going over time !!

make any round more complicated than it has to be and I will look for every/any way to vote against you

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? somewhere in between

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - I prefer judging identity K's.. but non identity K's proceed with caution

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/Disclosure T

^ auto strike!!

^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike

NGL - if your case is blippy I am gonna look for everyway to vote against you

this section only applies to LD .. not PF

CX - LOL

unless it's TRAD I won't judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

~~~

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.

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.

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

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any right now.

PERSONAL NOTE:

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

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

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

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

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

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

Other Remarks:

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

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.

Assistant Debate Coach at Harvard, formally at many other schools. Have coached and judged just about every level and style of debate.

*****

Each instance of a team reading a piece of evidence with 2 authors where only 1 is verbally cited or 3 where 1 is cited without adding et al. is -0.1 speaker point.I will also offer an alternative. If you want you can instead spend 30 seconds of your speech defending why selective credit for academic work is justifiable (each speech you want to engage in this practice). I know its done bc people want to save time but its terrible practice and will be punished.

****

Flow

Actively working to make my speaker points inline with circuit norms

Ask me for my email before the round