Me: Top 21st Nationally Ranked in WSD, 3rd year of S&D, 2x Nationals qualifier, 2x TFA State Octofinalist;

My Events: WSD, Congress, DX, IX, Impromptu

Debate:

- Although many judges say they are a blank slate, no one is. It wouldn't be true to say that my experience in debate, argumentation, and general knowledge doesnt play into my ballot. However, if you don't argue against a point even if its something like "the sky is green" its more likely to flow against you, but you all should be doing the debating, not me. I am here to evaluate. However, if arguments arent made, or even if they are something like the "sky is green" wouldn't pass through, understand that just because you say it (and possibly they dont respond to it) doesnt mean I have to buy it. When considering how I will follow your speeches, consider me an intelligent baby. I can follow your arguments as you put them and the debate as a whole but I can not piece together thoughts such as your claims, warrants, and impacts for you. Make your contentions links obvious.

Winning teams :

• Best prove their arguments were true (Practical through impacts, Principle through thoroughly proving importance, relevance, and uniqueness)
• Weigh both the principles and practicals to prove why they win on both, or one type of ground and why its the most important clash/argument in the round.
• It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponent's world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents on the same grounds or lower grounds.

Personal Preferences:

• Content and Strategy > Style (although style is still important)
• Clash heavy debates
• Framework carried through the whole bench
• Weighing that's fleshed out

Don't:

• Rude/Disrespectful
• Spreading (I can handle fast speeds but if it interferes with my ability to flow or your ability to flesh out your arguments you will lose points and my attention)
• Devolve into a definition debate, semantics, or try to tread the middle grounds
• Make me do your weighing or debating for you in my RFD

Speech:

• Speak at a pace that gets your information across, but also leaves space for style
• Use rhetoric not just content to get your points across and display emphasis
• Don't just be informative, be persuasive

I've been doing World Schools Debate for 3 years starting my freshman year. I have been to the NSDA Nationals and TFA state and broke into elims for both tournaments.

I like a debate that's analytical and argumentative as opposed to descriptive. Delve into WHY the issue or motion is important and its IMPACTS rather than just describing what is going on. Please keep the spreading to a minimum and do your best to prevent repeating points over and over again. Have at least a 5 minute speech, I don't like to see super short speeches with low amounts of content.

Overall just have fun, learn from your rounds, and analyze all of our RFDs in order to improve your skills. If you have any questions about RFD you can contact me @: Irath.habani@outlook.com

HEPHZIBAH IBUKUN

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at the University OF ILORIN studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.