Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Previously involved in my high school debate team doing Public Forum

Currently on my university’s (Penn State) speech & debate team

I flow and am paying attention to everything!

I like giving verbal feedback if time allows. Everything will be written in the ballot nonetheless.

General Approach to Judging:

I really enjoy good clash in the round. I like it when debaters directly engage with each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.

Organization is very important to me. Please road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Unique tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.

I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.

Weighing:

Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I'm in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.

Online Tournaments: Speed and web based debate does not work. Slow down or everyone will miss stuff.

Safety:

I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates for change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the educational space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

Hello!

Some background on me - 4 years PF and Policy debate experience and 3 years PF debate judging experience

I'm open to any argument as long as it is relevant to the resolution and backed with substantial evidence. Weighing impacts is crucial so make sure to outline not just arguments and impacts, but explain why they should be weighed more than your opponents'. Please structure speeches well and don't speak to fast.

Feel free to ask me questions on the paradigm before the round starts.

Good luck!

Hi, there.

I'm Qareebat.

I have sufficient experience in PF, LD, and Congressional debating. I have over 2 years of incredible experience in British Parliamentary and WSD styles that have provided me with skills in understanding, and listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF, LD and other debate styles.

This means I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for debaters and speakers and provide them with useful feedback.

Pronouns: She/her

Email: dedoyinibrahim@gmail.com

Personal conflicts: I do not have any.

Here are a few things to note:

-Debate is educational and inclusive as well as speeches, attack arguments not the person.

-You don't have to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speeches but not extremely fast ones.

-Help me get organized, I handwrite in the process of judging, I like roadmaps, it also helps me give specific feedback and actionable feedback. Also, paraphrasing evidence is alright, but make sure to explain its meaning and relevance.

-I understand you have a lot to say, be time-conscious.

-Read briefings and manuals for the tournament, I do the same.

-I give weight to arguments with good analysis and impact and my basic evaluation criteria are content, style, and strategy, and in debate, always fulfil your roles.

-I like civility. I respect speakers and I expect speakers to be respectful. I'll confirm your audibility and visibility.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge!

Yes email chain: jjkamau897@gmail.com Lay Judge

I'm a proud African pursuing a BSc. IBA with a diploma in psychology. As an open minded, free thinking individual, I find debates especially riveting. From time to time I participate in national and regional circuits though I prefer to be in the judges' seats exploring and absorbing the speakers claims.

My grading criteria is as defined;

1. Organization and clarity: The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. It is important not to lose your train of thought as this soon becomes lack of clarity. Use simple words and statements to get your points across. Big words sound clever but they can make you incomprehensible, lets keep it simple and clear.

2. Truth of claim : Are your points strong and persuasive? You must justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of “proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it a convincing argument.

3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal: Identify weakness in the competing team’s arguments and be able to bullet proof your own claim. Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. There may be misinterpretations or the points may also be unimportant or irrelevant. Teammates may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects if one has proper grasp of the other team's perspective.

4. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. Some debaters develop an excessively rapid style of delivery that interferes with the element of communication that is basic to debate. All features of presentation must be used convincingly.

5. Team dynamic and respect : "Manners maketh man". In the spirit of debate, we must ensure we refrain from use of derogatory or discriminatory terms, statements or arguments. Profanity and vulgar words only reveal the team's weakness in argument. Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word that is good for edification according to the need of the moment.

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

Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com

About me:

I am a proud Kenyan who grew up arguing over anything and everything until I discovered debate and the amazing and diverse individuals within it. I have been participating in, judging, and training debates for the last 3 years. Away from that, I alongside my debate club committee have organized a number of tournaments over the years. I am widely experienced in different formats of debates across different circuits in the world. I enjoy free thinkers, adaptable minds, and a keen sense of detail, and all this for me is part of the characteristics needed to be a good debater. Finally, I love dogs, and that about sums it up.

Judging Rubric :

1. Clarity: At this point what I want you to tell me is what the debate is about, and in doing so provide strong reasons and evidence as well as what your claim should be evaluated on. For example, it would help a lot if you could compile a short history of facts, characteristics, and effects of the subject in matter or create a probable future in regards to calculated eventualities from your claims.

2. Mechanization: This for me is how well you arrange your points to fully bring out your case with enough matter to stand against the opponent's case as well as proving a good basis as to why your case stands out over all others. I consider team dynamic as part of this in that, a well-worked-out presentation from you and your partner should incorporate a united front with no contradiction, as well as strong supportive extensions that solidify your case in addition to tearing down your opponents.

3. Weighing: The most important thing at this point is to completely prove the other team wrong, most responses in debates only mitigate the other team's arguments rather than prove their whole case wrong. This can be avoided by simply taking down your opponent's case through either doing of the two. First, supporting your own case, or secondly, exposing the opponents' case or claim. Both of these factors share similar metrics in regards to how you present the case. For example, If You can show how the opponent's best-case scenario is flawed through metrics (such as a case of urgency, what affects more people etc.) and provide reasonable evidence as to why there is a high likelihood of conviction from me. You can as well defend your own claim by showing how your average to the worst point is better than the opponent's best point and with proper metrics with evidence solidify your cases (Remember you can you two or more metrics co-dependently to enforce your case that be careful to emphasize on the correlation).

4. Engagement: At this point, I will be looking out for how well you are able to respond and object to your opponent, I want to see a clear confrontation between both sides. That said, no watering down of opponent points without reasonable claims or completely assuming the other side, in short, I want you to address the other team's case wholesomely.

5. Structure: I honestly think that if the first 4 criteria are met the structure naturally follows, in light of this just make sure to keep it simple but detailed, make sure that all participants can clearly understand you and you'd be in my good books. If you had an outline of your presentation that would definitely bump it up a notch.

6. Conduct: Simply put, we are all here to learn, grow and empower each other, and with that said I will not be taking any slander at all in regards to ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or stereotypes. You shall respect your fellow participants and any violation of this will result in repercussions and a report to the organizers. With that cleared up, my number 1 rule is, 'Take a breathe and let's have fun with it.'

I am an active judge with over a year experience and I have judged more than ten debate tournaments.

I allow speakers to use jargon but it must fulfil the essence of communication. Likewise, clarity over speed for convenient judging and the benefit of the other speakers.

I take notes of key arguments, counterarguments, presentation skills, ability to engage with opponents and critically respond to counterarguments during the round.

I value style over argument even though debaters are to argue their points. It is not about attacking the opponent rather focus on argument substance, make the points clear and concise. The debate should be a constructive and respectful environment for both sides.

In assessing debate, I look out for how well debaters support their claims, use of effective evidence & examples, address their counterarguments and demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic.

For the previous debate rounds I find most persuasive, the speakers that eventually got the win was due to their real strong evidence base, their effective use of credible source. They made it more relatable and engaging with the use of emotional resonance and left me with no choice than to give them the win.

The expectations I have for my debaters' in-round conduct are: they should treat themselves with respect, listen actively, focus on the given topic, support their claims with evidence, be prepared before time by asking possible questions that might come from your opponent and vise versa (especially during cross-ex), organize arguments clearly, adhere to time limits, engage your opponent's arguments and respond thoughtfully. Debaters should acknowledge when their opponents have made an error (like one of the previous debate round I experienced).

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!

Hi debaters, Here are my preferences ;-

Framework: I am open to various frameworks, including traditional philosophical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, social contract, etc.) as well as alternative frameworks. Regardless of the framework you choose, explain it clearly and justify its relevance to the resolution. I will evaluate the round based on the framework that is best justified and applied.

Theory: I am willing to evaluate theory arguments, but I prefer well-developed and warranted theory. Clearly explain the abuse and its impact on the round. I am less receptive to frivolous or overly technical theory. A/R and RVI's are not automatic; they must be warranted.

Clarity and Organization: I highly value clear and concise communication. Speak at a reasonable pace and ensure your arguments are well-structured and easy to follow. Signposting and clear articulation of your positions are essential. Avoid excessive jargon or overly complex theoretical arguments without proper explanation.

Evidence and Analysis: Evidence is important, but analysis of that evidence is even more crucial. Explain how your evidence supports your claims and how it interacts with your opponent's arguments. I am less persuaded by card dumps and more impressed by debaters who can synthesize and apply their evidence effectively.

Clash: Engage directly with your opponent's arguments. Explain why your positions are superior and where their reasoning falls short. Direct refutation and clear articulation of points of contention are critical for a good debate. Don't just talk at your opponent; talk to them and engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Impacts: Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. Explain why your arguments matter and how they relate to the resolution. Don't assume I understand the implications of your claims; spell them out explicitly. Comparative weighing of impacts is essential.

I value civility and expect all participants to approach the discussion with an open mind and a commitment to respectful discourse. Please avoid personal attacks or biased language.

To enhance understanding, I encourage debaters to speak at a moderate pace, provide clear roadmaps, and focus on the substance and relevance of their arguments. While facts can be informative, the strength of your case ultimately lies in the logical coherence and persuasiveness of your reasoning.

LD Paradigm Hey everyone, I've been involved in debate for a while and I value rounds that are meaningful and engaging, so here's what I'm looking for: Framework: Feel free to run a framework if it's relevant, but don't get bogged down in unnecessary debates. If your frameworks are fundamentally different, explain why yours is better and how it changes how I should evaluate the round. If they're similar, focus on the arguments that actually matter. And most importantly, justify your framework – don't just state it. Tell me why I should prefer your standard. Evidence: I appreciate it when debaters really dig into the evidence. Call out flaws in your opponent's cards, explain why their evidence doesn't actually support their argument, or show inconsistencies. But don't just read cards – analyze them! Connect the evidence to your arguments and explain the bigger picture. Argumentation: Be creative! I'm open to most arguments as long as they're well-supported and your opponent has a fair chance to respond. If you're running something unusual like a pre-fiat K, make sure you explain it clearly and tell me why it's relevant to the round. The same goes for plans – justify them! Theory: Theory should be used strategically, not as a cheap shot. If you're going to run it, make sure you have a clear violation and explain why it's important enough for me to vote on. No frivolous theory, please. and for Speed: I can handle some speed, but clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, and if I can't flow you, I can't vote for you. How I Vote: Ultimately, tell me why you're winning the round. Weigh your impacts against your opponent's, compare your arguments, and connect everything back to the framework (if there is one). Don't leave me guessing – show me the path to the ballot! If there's no clear framework or weighing, I'll prioritize the risk of offense and the importance of the arguments. PF Paradigm Hey PFers! My focus in PF is on clarity, clash, and persuasion. PF should be accessible, so keep it simple and focused on the resolution. Here's what I'm looking for: Framework: I generally evaluate rounds based on "on-balance," but you can propose a different framework if it's relevant to the resolution. If you do, explain it clearly and tell me why I should use it. Evidence: Evidence matters, but how you use it matters more. Analyze your evidence, explain why it's important, and show how it connects to your arguments. Don't just read cards – engage with your opponent's evidence and try to find weaknesses in it. Clash: This is crucial in PF! Directly address your opponent's arguments, refute them, and explain why your impacts are more important. Don't leave me to figure out who's winning – tell me! Technicalities: Keep the speed reasonable. PF should be understandable to a lay audience. Avoid excessive jargon. Final Focus: This is your chance to summarize the key points of the round and explain why you've won. Weigh your impacts, remind me of the most important arguments, and leave no doubt in my mind. How I Vote: I'm looking for clear arguments, strong clash, and persuasive weighing. I'll flow everything, but you need to help me understand what's most important. Show me why your impacts outweigh your opponent's and why you deserve the ballot. Basically, Keep it clear, clash effectively, weigh your impacts, and tell me why you're winning! I'm looking for strategic thinking and well-executed arguments. Make my job easy!

I'm like a 7-8/10 for speed in terms of what I can flow. My preference, however, is a 4-5 during the case and a 7-8/10 in rebuttal where necessary.

If you are the second speaking team and you don't come back to your case in rebuttal, there are going to be some pretty easy extensions in summary (probably) that are going to mean game over for you.

I will vote on a warranted argument regardless of whether it is a "traditional" argument. That said, I am hesitant to vote on theory for the sake of running theory. Ex: Running theory without a clear in round abuse story is probably not going to fly with me.

In general, I would say that I am just going to vote on whatever is the path of least resistance on the flow. Make it easy. Write my ballot.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD - Based on what LD generally looks like now, you probably don't want to prefer me. I strongly prefer a more traditional style of debate. Will I listen to anything? Yes. Will I be annoyed? Yes.

Congress - Analysis ✔ Sources ✔ A conversational style ✔ Good clash ✔. A good PO will probably make my ballot, but I strongly prefer the good speakers. I just read Neal White's Congress paradigm, and I agree with everything he said.

I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory

He/Him pronouns

Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

FLOW

I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial.

If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel.

A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs are very crucial to me. While debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH CONDUCT

• I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
• Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.

WHAT APPEALS

Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.

Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.

Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.

Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Hello, my name is olayinka Oderanti. I am a debater, a coach and an experienced judge since (2022-now. For me, speaking is an hobby and I love listening to people speak.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), congress, Parliamentary debate, Lincoln Douglas (LD),World scholastic championship (WSC) and some others.

I have also judge many speeches.

As a judge, I prioritize equality of debaters and fairness during every round.
I also take time as very important,for me arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

I appreciate speakers that prioritize clarity instead of pace or speed without clarity. Heads-up could be given when speakers decide to speak extremely fast and documents can also be sent for already planned motion for some formats like Lincoln Douglas(LD)and public forum (PF).

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style. Speakers should emphasize their arguments well enough instead of randomly stating them.

I appreciate speakers who understands the difference in formats and motions and know what they should do and not to.
A little bit of summary of the speech should be given at the end of the round to summarize why you win the round picking from arguments given during the round and the crossfire sessions.

I have a variety of skills such as rapt listening, critical analysis, and attention to details which allows me to access submissions fairly and without bias.
I am committed to encouraging and supporting participants ensuring that their efforts are recognized and valued. To me, it’s not just about selecting a winner but also fostering growth and breeding potentials.

Here are a few of my past experiences judging ( tabroom specific)

1. Judge 7 PF rounds, Georgetown Fall, 6th October 2023.

2. Finals, Semifinals and Octofinals judge of ESPAR, ESPAR and PF respectively, Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational, 11th November 2023.

3. Judge semifinal, quart and 3 rounds including PF,ESPAR and IMP in the WInter championship,6th January,2024.

4. ⁠ judge doubles, octafinals and 6 rounds of PF in the 38th annual Stamford invitational,10th February,2024.

5. ⁠judged 3 double flighted rounds of PF in the Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament 16th February,2024.

6. ⁠judged 3 rounds of LD in the Loyola special scrimmage , 2nd march 2024.

7. ⁠judged a round of asynchronous declamation at the NSDA springboard scrimmage 23,19th march, 2024.

8. ⁠judged 3 rounds of CNDF at the Vancouver debate academy spring tournament 22nd June 2024.
⁠
9. ⁠judged 2 rounds of IPDA HS/JH season opener 13th September 2024.

10. Judges 4 rounds of PF including doubles in the Tim Averill invitational online October 2024.

11. Judged a round of WSD in the citron November world school invitational November 2024.

12. Judged 2 rounds of LD in the Citron December debate invitational,December 2024..

Let’s have a great time anyways.

pronouns He/him

✓ I have been judging for over twelve months, and I have judges several debate tournaments of different formats ranging from PF to LD, CX, Congress, speech.... I have judged debates in not less than twenty different tournaments.

✓ I allow debaters to expressly and effectively communicate their arguments while prioritizing clarity over speed for the sake of judge's thorough assessment and of course their opponents' understanding. Jargon or technical language could be permitted only when used to communicate the subject area of the debate.

✓ I do judge with my note and pen readily available beside me so as to take note of important or key arguments including rebuttals and summaries.

✓ I prioritize effective delivery of arguments. Any intelligent style may be employed by debaters but within the scope/ guidelines of each debate format.

✓ In assessing a debate, I consider the articulation of arguments, polite demeanor especially during cross-examination, the content of the arguments if it resonate with the resolution, however, all debate activities must to specific to the debate format of that moment.

✓ I could describe the argument I found most persuasive in my previous debate rounds in this manner, the arguments were constructive, arguments delivery was audible and clear, there was a good teamwork between the side of the debate, educative and friendly demeanor was maintained throughout the debate round, the arguments were supported with claims and evidences, and of course the team won my vote.

✓ Aggressive and cutting opponents' responses during cross-examination are very unnecessary, maintaining educative, competitive and friendly demeanor pays off. However, I look forward to constructive arguments, intelligent and audible delivery of speech, claims with evidences to support arguments, persuasive counterarguments and timeliness.

Best regards.

Jesutofunmi Joshua OGUNNIRAN

As a seasoned judge with few years of coaching and judging experience, I prioritize a conversational delivery and balanced use of jargon for clarity in communication. My meticulous note-taking ensures accurate recall of key arguments.

I equally value both argument and style, emphasizing the foundational importance of substantive arguments. In evaluating debates, I prioritize content, structure, and adherence to the topic, favoring arguments with real-world impacts and diverse perspectives.

Reflecting on my judging experience, I find that well-supported arguments tied to real-world impacts are consistently the most compelling in previous rounds.

In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful demeanor, actively fostering a constructive and competitive spirit aligned with the educational goals of debate.

Adhering to judging principles, I commit to impartiality, active listening, and fairness. Open-mindedness guides my approach, ensuring receptiveness to diverse perspectives without pre-judgment. Respect, adaptability, and encouragement of engagement are fundamental to my judging philosophy.

Upholding integrity, I steer clear of conflicts of interest and provide transparent criteria for decision-making. Constructive feedback is integral, offering positive reinforcement and specific, actionable advice for improvement.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

Hi there! I’ve been involved in debate for quite a while— in Lincoln-Douglas, in Public Forum, and more years judging both events. My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward: I aim to reward strong argumentation, clear communication, and meaningful engagement with the debate topic. At the end of the round, I want to be able to weigh impacts and feel confident that the winning side gave me a clear reason to vote for them.

Rate of Delivery

When it comes to speaking speed, I’m flexible. I prefer a conversational pace because it tends to make arguments more persuasive and easier to follow. That said, if you want to go fast, I won’t hold it against you—as long as you’re clear. If I can’t understand what you’re saying or if your arguments get lost in a rapid delivery, they won’t make it onto my flow. Keep in mind: clarity is your responsibility, not mine.

Values and Criteria

Values and criteria are a hallmark of LD, but I don’t think they’re required in every round. If you do use a value/criterion framework, make it count. Show me how it ties into your case, frames the round, and helps me evaluate the impacts. If you don’t use one, that’s fine too—just make sure your framework is clear and gives me the tools I need to fairly judge the round. Either way, I care more about how you apply your framework to the actual arguments than whether you’ve included one for the sake of tradition.

Rebuttals and Voting Issues

Rebuttals are where you show me how you’re winning the debate. Whether you explicitly label "voting issues" or not isn’t a dealbreaker for me. What matters is that you’re crystallizing the key points of clash and making it clear how I should evaluate the round. In your final speeches, weigh the impacts—don’t just tell me you’re winning, show me why. Jargon like “extend,” “cross-apply,” or “turn” is totally fine, but make sure it’s being used to enhance clarity, not confuse the round.

How I Decide the Round

I vote based on who wins the most important arguments in the round. Strong impact analysis is absolutely critical here. Help me understand why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s and how they function within the round’s framework. I don’t assume either side is automatically correct—both aff and neg need offense. If neither side gives me clear offense, I’ll evaluate based on the risk of offense or presumption, depending on the circumstances.

Use of Evidence

I value evidence, but I don’t think it’s always necessary. Logical, analytical arguments can be just as powerful as empirical evidence when presented well. That said, if you’re going to use evidence, use it effectively. Don’t just cite a card and move on—engage with it. Highlight contradictions, call out weaknesses, and explain how it supports your case. I appreciate debaters who treat evidence as part of their argumentation, not just something to check off a list.

Flowing and Note-Taking

I take flowing seriously and keep a detailed record of every argument in the round. Organization and signposting are really important to me—if I can’t figure out where an argument belongs on my flow, it’s going to be much harder for me to evaluate it. Make your arguments clear and distinct, and don’t expect me to connect the dots for you.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I’m a pretty flexible judge. I don’t have strict preferences about how you structure your case or present your arguments. My main focus is on clarity, clash, and impacts. If you can explain why your arguments matter, how they interact with your opponent’s, and why they ultimately outweigh, you’re in a strong position to win my ballot.

P.S. I know these kinds of paradigms can feel a little formulaic, but if you take one thing away from mine, it’s this: do what works best for you . Clear impacts, solid argumentation, and a little bit of persuasion will take you far!

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

I bring extensive experience in Public Forum (PF), Lincoln Douglas, and Congressional Debate, supplemented by a diverse background in British Parliamentary (BP) and World Schools debate formats. These experiences have equipped me with skills in discernment, active listening, and objective evaluation — all of which inform my judging philosophy. While each format has distinct norms, I adhere to several core principles: I prioritize clear argumentation, well-developed clash, and persuasive communication. Below is an expanded explanation of my criteria and preferences for different debate elements.

Cross-Examination (CX)

• I do not flow CX. While CX is an important tool for clarification and identifying clash, I won’t evaluate it directly unless the points raised are later integrated into constructive speeches.
• CX is most effective when used to:
  • Clarify opponents’ arguments to minimize mischaracterization.
  • Expose contradictions, weaknesses, or inconsistencies.
  • Establish key points of clash that can be leveraged in later speeches.
• If a key point emerges in CX, it must be referenced and extended in your next speech for me to consider it. Treat CX as a tool to set up your arguments — not as a standalone persuasive moment.

Progressive Debate and Technical Elements

While I am not a specialist in progressive debate, I have developed familiarity with certain elements. My expectations vary depending on the format and the argument's clarity.

Kritiks (Ks)

• I am open to Kritiks if they are clearly structured and well-explained. For me to consider a K, you must:
  • Articulate the link between the K and your opponent’s case.
  • Explain why the K takes precedence over the case debate.
  • Provide clear alternative advocacy or framework if applicable.
• Poorly explained or overly dense Ks risk being dismissed if I cannot follow the logic or connections.

Counterplans (CPs)

• In Public Forum, I expect debaters to avoid CPs as they undermine the format’s intended clash between two clear advocacies.
• In Lincoln-Douglas, CPs are acceptable if they are clearly structured, relevant to the resolution, and justified within the framework. CPs that mirror PF-style plans risk confusion and may hurt your persuasiveness.

Theory

• I have limited patience for theory unless it’s directly linked to fairness or argument abuse. Simple, clear theory shells addressing round integrity (e.g., fairness violations) are manageable, but complex theory debates requiring specialized knowledge are unlikely to resonate with me.
• If you do run theory, be concise and explain its significance clearly.

Decision-Making (RFD) in Public Forum

My decision is grounded in a comparative evaluation of impacts within the round’s structure. Here’s how I approach key elements:

Impacts

• I vote based on well-defined, extended impacts that maintain relevance throughout the round.
• If an impact is dropped in Summary, I will not consider it in Final Focus — no exceptions.
• The most effective teams weigh impacts clearly (e.g., magnitude, probability, timeframe) to demonstrate why their impact matters most.

Framework

• While I don’t vote off framework alone, a well-established framework can shape how I evaluate impacts. If both teams present compelling frameworks, I assess which is better justified and align my impact evaluation accordingly.
• If neither side introduces a clear weighing mechanism, I default to evaluating impacts independently, focusing on the most persuasive link chains.

Extensions

• Strong extensions should include claim, warrant, and impact — simply repeating a tagline is insufficient.
• Extending arguments without impact calculus makes it harder for me to evaluate their significance.

Decision-Making (RFD) in Lincoln-Douglas

While similar to PF in some respects, LD’s greater emphasis on philosophical frameworks requires a slightly different approach.

Framework

• Framework is central to my evaluation in LD. I assess which side better defends their framework and whose arguments function most effectively within that structure.
• If frameworks clash, I evaluate which framework is better justified before assessing the arguments through that lens.

Value/Value Criterion

• I expect a clear explanation of how your value and criterion function together.
• If both debaters neglect value clash, I will default to the best-developed impact calculus.

Extensions and Impact Analysis

• As in PF, all arguments and impacts must be consistently extended across the flow to be considered in my decision.
• LD’s emphasis on abstract principles makes comparative analysis especially crucial. The better you weigh competing impacts within your framework, the stronger your position.

Speed and Flow

• I am a paper flow judge, and while I can handle a reasonable pace, excessive speed (spreading) jeopardizes your clarity and strategic positioning.
• Speed should never compromise clarity — if I miss an argument because you spoke too quickly, that’s on the speaker.
• I strongly discourage spreading in PF and Congress, as these formats emphasize accessible communication.
• In LD, if you choose to accelerate your delivery, maintain strong signposting and slow down for key points.

General Expectations and Preferences

• Clarity matters. I reward speakers who present clear, organized arguments that are easy to follow.
• Signposting is crucial. Clearly indicate where you are on the flow to help me track your arguments.
• Weigh early and often. The earlier you introduce impact calculus, the more effective your strategy will be.
• Engagement is key. Don’t just extend your case — engage directly with your opponents’ arguments to demonstrate why your position is superior.
• Professionalism matters. I expect debaters to uphold the norms of constructive discourse — personal attacks, excessive hostility, or dismissiveness will hurt your credibility.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, I aim to reward teams that debate in a way that is clear, strategic, and communicative. The most successful debaters in front of me are those who balance strong argumentation with persuasive delivery. If you have specific questions about my judging preferences before the round, I’m happy to clarify.

I have a helpless artifice for researching the written and dedicate substantial hours a week to develop my speaking and judging prowess. I have coached and judged different types of debate and speech events within the past four years. I was a Co-Coach of Faculty of Education Debate Club, University of Ilorin, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024Academic Session, and Public Speaking Coach of the University of Ilorin Debating Community, 2023/2024 AcademicSession. I am an alumnus of the University Of Ilorin Debating Community (UILDC).

Email Chain: usmanaduragbemi77@gmail.com

Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, Speech Events, Etc:

• Remember, it's not all about speed. Focus on persuading me and showcasing the importance of your arguments. Keep it engaging and add some flair. When it comes to theory arguments, make sure they're valid and not just trendy.
• I'm not a calculator, so it's not just about winning lots of arguments. Persuade me with communication and style.

Here are some key points to remember:

1. Use signposts and roadmaps to guide your speech. Make sure to address your opponent's case and organize your arguments effectively.

2. Establish a framework early on and explain why it should be preferred. If there are multiple frameworks, choose one and provide a clear rationale.

3. When extending arguments, go beyond taglines. Explain the warrants and the importance of your impacts. Summary extensions are crucial for the Final Focus.

4. Paraphrasing evidence is okay, but make sure to explain its meaning and relevance to the round. Extend evidence in later speeches.

5. Focus on creating a strong narrative. Narrow down the key contention-level impact story and address your opponent's contentions effectively.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Some Adjudication/speaking Experience/Achievements:

Tabroom:
1. Vancouver Debate Academy Spring Tournament, 2024, Canadian Format, Chaired 4/4
prelim-rounds, Open finals Panel.
2. Georgetown Fall, 2024, Public Forum, Judged 7 Prelim rounds, 2 Elimination rounds.
3. Harvard Debate International Tournaments, 2024, Public Forum, Chaired 4/4
prelim-rounds, Semi-finals and Finals Panel.
4. Philhistorian Middle School and High School Invitational, 2024, Elementary Impromptu,
Chaired 3/3 prelim-rounds, Open Finals Panel.
5. Winter Championship, 2024, Elementary Spontaneous Argument (ESPAR), Chaired 3/3
prelim-rounds, Finals Panel.
6. Winter Wrap-Up, 2024, Canadian format, Chaired 2/2 Junior Varsity in-rounds and 1/2
Novice prelim-rounds.
7. Harvard Debate High School Tournament, 2024, Online, Congress, chaired 4/5 in-rounds.
8. Yale Invitational, 2023, Online, Public Forum, Chaired 6/5 prelim-rounds, Panelled Junior
Varsity Triple, Quarterfinals, and Finals.
9. Dempsey-Cronin Memorial Invitational, 2023, Online, Lincoln Douglas, Chaired 4/5
prelim-rounds, Panelled High school Octofinals and Quarterfinals, Panelled Middle school
Semifinals.
10. November Topic Tournament, 2023, Public Forum, Chaired 3/3 prelim-rounds, no
outrounds.

Non-Tabroom:
1. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2024, Chaired 2/7 in-rounds, Novice
Semi-finals Panel, Open Finals chair.
2. Royalty Pact Debating Academy Pre-Pan African Universities Debating Championship,
2023, Chaired 4/5 in-rounds, Open Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, and Finals Panel.
3. Lagos Debate Open, 2023, Chaired 4/5 in-rounds, Open Semi-finals Panel.
4. All Nigerian Universities Debate Championship 2023, Chaired 7/9 in-rounds, Open
Quarterfinals Panel.
5. National Novice Tournament, 2023, Chaired 2/5 in-rounds, Semi-finals Panel.
6. Speech Craft, 2023, Chaired 5/5 in-rounds, Semi-finals Chair.
7. Pre- Emirate Verbal Combat, 2023, Semi-Finals Panelist.
8. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2023, Nigeria, Beat Judge..
9. University Of Ilorin Emirate Verbal Combat, 2022, Chaired 5/5 in-rounds, Finals chair.
10. Hearts Afire Open 2021, Chaired all in rounds, Grand finals Panelist.

FORENSICS:
1. Judged middle school impromptu, NOF Birch Invitational, 2024.
2. Judged High School LD, Middle School SPAR, Middle School Impromptu, NOF OAK
INVITATIONAL, 2024.
3. Judged College IPDA, College Impromptu, NOF Elm Invitational, 2024.

Speaking Achievements
1. Word War VI, 2024, Overall Best Public Speaker, Semifinalist.
2. West African Universities Debating Championships, 2024, Overall Best Public Speaker,
Semifinalist.
3. Vamidzo (A Pre Ama Atta Public Speaking Tournament) 2024, Finalist, 1st Runner Up.
4. Mashariki Debate Open, 2024, Quarterfinalist.
5. All Nigerian Universities Debating Championship, 2024, Public Speaking Finalist.
6. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2024, Public Speaking Finalist.
7. Kampala Speech open, 2024, Public Speaking Semifinalist.
8. Hearts Affire, 2024, Octofinalist, 10th best speaker.
9. University of Ilorin Emirate Verbal Combat 2020, Partial Semi-Finalist.

10. Battleground Pro-am, 2021, Finalist.

I am experienced with the WSDC, PF, LD, Speeches and Asians formats.

Notes for speakers:

I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of the evidence.

While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated withit.

If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.

If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.

Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.

Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.

Road maps are appreciated.

Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.

Any kind of style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.

I am reasonably low during speech. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Background: I have been judging and training for the past five and a half years. I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Computer Science as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating, eating, and traveling.

Judging criteria:

1. Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which, in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate.

2. Mechanizations: It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counterclaim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate. So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining why it's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having your claim tag along with mechanization.

3. Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing You can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people, has long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.

4. Structure: It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having a clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes it easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow (carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.

5. Synergy: How you and your partner build your case is important. This is done by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner. Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speech.

Lastly, respect your opponents. During the debate, do not use any derogatory or insulting language. I encourage you to use your imagination and have fun while learning and engaging with new individuals in the world of debate. Best wishes!

Hi!

I am a junior and third year speech and debater at East Chapel Hill High School. I have experience in mainly PF and Congress but have also done impromptu. I also have a bit of judging experience with PF!

General Rules:

• BE NICE! We're all here to have fun and enjoy ourselves so please don't be aggressive towards others. Additionally, please do not use any derogatory or discriminatory language. I WILL take off speaker points if any sort of harassment is shown.
• I will be timing but please also time yourselves. Ultimately, my timer will account for the real time but it's always good to have a general idea of how much time you have left! I will be giving a ten second overtime grace period. Beyond this, I will not count your further arguments on my flow.

For PF:

• Please DO NOT spread. I will be flowing so if I cannot understand what your arguments are, it will be harder for me to make a decision and ultimately result in the other team having the upper hand.
• If the second team uses prep time immediately after the first team gives their constructive speech, I will be taking off speaker points. This would be extremely unfair to the first team and is bad sportsmanship.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! Please weigh your impacts in your final focus and tell me WHY your argument wins. This is where I usually make my decision as to who wins the debate.