Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge 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.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

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

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc).

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Best of luck.

Timothy Adediran is a well trained professional orator, with experiences in speaking, judging and coaching public forums. Having years of experience in debate; from high school to university levels, I have all the knowledge there is about debating. Also as an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. I believe, debating is built on growth of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess good knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I'm not a picky judge, just prefer arguments and priorities comparisons and weigh ups(when necessary). As an average intelligent voter, I expect you treat as such.

Email Address: timmayostrings@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

One big thing you should know that can be your friend or enemy is the mighty K for Kritiks.

Clear and sufficient analysis of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will play a role in enhancing your chances of persuading me. Prioritize clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.

Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative and examples, demonstrating its significance and how it plays in with other arguments in the round.

Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.

Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Preempt opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.

While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are very important.

Things you should know and prioritize also:

Deeply research and understand the topic. The more familiar you are about the subject matter, the better you can generate and defend your arguments.

Organize your arguments in a clear and reasonable structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to back them up, and explain the downside. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

Be prepared to adjust your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterfactuals, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.

Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than matter dumping, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening:

I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in convincing discourse.

Objective Evaluation:

My judgments are based on the arguments presented in the debate, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Your Favorite Immortal, or not,

Timothy Adediran.

Hi there,
I’m Mitchell Akinjayeju, preferred pronouns are she/ her. I am a regular debater and public speaker. During the course of my debating career, I’ve been able to gather ample judging experiences and also skills necessary for judging different debating formats and styles.

Conflicts: None

PERSONAL NOTE:

I prioritize a fair, positive and highly engaging room. I also hold in high regards time management, role fulfillment, good structural speeches, amongst others. It is also necessary and advised to engage with context, framing and arguments of other teams even if you do not agree with their speeches, providing a counter factual in your own speech where deemed necessary.

I take account of everything a speaker says irregardless of the pace of speech due to human diversity and nature although, I prefer medium paced speeches as it makes the flow of point taking easier.

Special Consideration for Virtual Debates:

Cameras should be kept on at all times. In instances where you can’t keep your camera on, do well to communicate that and there’ll be an exception.

Thank you.

Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

Don’t disrespect Vancouver, if I hear you trash talking VDA, I won’t drop you but default 25s. I have to stay loyal to my school.

General:

style, speaking fast is fine, don’t full on spread unless opponent is fine with it and you send speech doc, I don’t want blame for dropping you because I missed a de-link or a turn. Debates get heated, I get it, especially in cross, just don’t be mean and apologize after, I won’t doc you, I’ve been there before. I’m generous with speaks, 28 is average rate both your speaking skills and strategic choices from -1 to +1 to give you speaks. So min 26 max 30 unless something is really wrong. Bring food for me (candy pls) I’ll give 30.

content, Tech > Truth.

rebuttal, don’t spam turns, not useful because turns need good warranting and analysis and one-liners don’t do that. If you do spam turns, expect me to buy the one-line frontlines to your one-line turns. Deal with link-chain effectively, alt causes and no solvency/impact inevitable are good mitigation methods. Second rebuttal should frontline all rebuttal.

summary, extend what you need to, case extension can be brief, you don’t have to go over in detail just briefly explain link and name all the cards at the end I’ll flow it over, as a first speaker myself, I get the pain of spending too much time on extensions and not having time for actual clash. THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN SAY EXTEND C1 C2 C3 AND MOVE ON, give me the logic. Same thing with extending rebuttal, if you are first and they don’t frontline the rebuttal, don’t need to extend it I’ll flow it over, I want good clash in summary not a shortened version of rebuttal. Weigh if you can, I’ll accept new weighing in first but not second FF.

FF, same as summary, new weighing is fine for first, not for second.

Framing:

I buy all kinds of framing, default util if none is provided. If you run a SV framing though, run it properly as it is a disgrace to use a minorities framework for the sake of you winning a trophy. Even in a SV framework, I’ll still weigh util if the other teams proves that util still matters. For example, if they fully win econ collapse, and you won a marginalism point, I won’t default you guys under SV. I’ll need to consider the scope of your Econ and SV. That does not mean econ affects more people they win, it’s just that if it’s absurd like 100 million people versus 1 million, I will need more analysis to prove why 1 million matters more than 100.

Politics:

I’m a centrist, not biased so politics arguments for both sides work. If you do run politics though, do not run evidence from biased sources because there’s prob a piece of evidence that says the opposite from the a biased source on the other side too. Run centrist sources, empirical case studies, or don’t run politics. I would love to speculate politics with you, but you can’t use speculation to win a round. Run the scenario well, I’ll consider it as with any other case.

Progressive:

k’s are fine, every k works on me, truth still matters so a death k’s definitely need more analysis for example than risk calc k’s. End of the day, run less truth k, do more analysis and warranting to make up for it. Even though tech > truth, truth still matters, not going to drop the other team because they don’t have a card on hand that says death is bad.

theory is fine, especially paraphrasing and disclosure, as long as you follow your own standards. Not defaulting no RVI

Drop Standards: if a card is intentionally misconstrued, point it out I’ll drop the other team. DO NOT FABRICATE EVIDENCE.

Judge intervention is BAD. If there is competing evidence, please compare it yourselves. If you don’t however, and I have to intervene: verified studies —> research papers —> news articles —> blogs.

Personal Experience: PF and Parli.

So if you read tech, you read flay, you read lay, you read cards, you read not cards, I don’t care, make it make sense I’ll vote on it. Evidence formats should have evidence though.

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

I think that conditionality should be a last resort; I am not sure why it has become so popular as the B strategy for several teams.

Reasonability should not be argued as an alternative frame to competing interpretations because I must endorse an interpretation at the end of the debate. Instead, I think reasonability is best used as a framing argument to raise the threshold for the abuse or potential abuse Negative teams must prove.

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for arguments with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Critical teams should spend time explaining arguments in front of me in practical terms without jargon. I think the pedantry in academia can easily permeate debaters' blocks and strategies. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people versed in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

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

Greetings!!! Esteemed debaters and colleagues, Welcome to my paradigm.

I'm Hassan Abubakar, and I'm honored to be part of the vibrant international virtual debate community. With half a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I bring a passion for intellectual discourse and a commitment to fairness to every round.

Feel free to reach out to me at olatunjihassan22@gmail.com for inquiries or to discuss all things debate!

About Me

My journey in debate has been diverse, spanning various formats including British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), and more. As a seasoned professional, I deeply value the cultivation of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by principles of logic and adherence to specific debate rules. My approach to judging is rooted in fairness, equity, and fostering constructive dialogue among participants.

Conflicts

I come to every round with impartiality and without conflicts. My focus is solely on evaluating arguments and providing constructive feedback to aid in debaters' growth and development.

Philosophy and Approach

When you step into my judging room, expect a supportive and inclusive atmosphere where all voices are valued. I prioritize clarity, coherence, and strategic engagement in debates. While I appreciate innovative perspectives, arguments should be relevant and articulated with precision within the debate context.

Navigating Virtual Debates

In the realm of virtual debates, I encourage all participants to keep their cameras on for enhanced engagement. However, I understand that circumstances may require camera-off situations, and I'm accommodating of valid reasons. Let's ensure a seamless and enriching debate experience for everyone involved.

Key Considerations:

• Kritiks: A well-constructed kritik that aligns with the debate context can be transformative. Clarity, relevance, and adherence to format rules are essential for its effectiveness.
• Policy: Deep research, effective evidence usage, clear argumentation, adaptability, and strong cross-examination skills are fundamental to persuasive advocacy.
• Cross-Examination: Utilize cross-examination strategically to uncover insights, challenge opponents' arguments, and advance your case. Let's maintain professionalism and focus on the substance of arguments.
• Strategic Engagement: Prioritize arguments with strategic importance, avoiding tangents or irrelevant points.
• Clarity and Quality: Emphasize clarity over speed and depth over breadth in your arguments. Substance and coherence resonate more than sheer volume.
• Speaker Points: While high scores are not guaranteed, substantive contributions supported by clear reasoning and evidence usage are recognized and rewarded.

Impact Weighing

Impact weighing serves as the compass guiding my evaluation of arguments' significance and implications. Masterful impact weighing can sway the balance of the debate and elevate the overall quality of discourse.

Closing Thoughts

Debating is a journey of growth, learning, and camaraderie. I'm here to support you on this journey and help you reach your full potential. Remember, every round presents an opportunity to refine your skills, engage in meaningful discourse, and forge lasting connections with fellow debaters.

Thank you for your dedication to excellence in debate. Let's embark on this intellectual adventure together!

Warm regards,

Hassan Abubakar

olatunjihassan22@gmail.com

Hi, there.

I'm Qareebat Ibrahim, a versatile debater, and adjudicator with vast experience in judging speeches and debate tournaments. This means 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 impactful to your judging pool.

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 fulfill 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!

Hello, I am Alex Jin, a competitive debater from Vancouver Debate Academy. I have debated for 2-3 years and I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Email: alex.jinzijian@gmail.com

TLDR (too long didn't read)

• Do. Not. Even. Try. To. Gaslight. Me.I will be carefully flowing the entire debate, so I will know if you lie or try to gaslight me into an argument. If you try to do this, ur will speaks will get absolutely demolished harder than Denmark in WWII.
• Line-by-line refutations good
• Clash is key
• A claim without warranting or evidence is not a valid claim
• Tech > truth. I will be flowing the entire debate
• Ethos and speech etiquette will not factor into my decision AT ALL. They will only matter for speaker points
• Please DO NOT say your opponents dropped an argument when they really didn't. This is the WORST practice debaters (especially in CNDF and parli styles) do these days
• Spreading is fine - just need to send me a speech doc BEFOREHAND.
• Progressive arguments (Ks, theory, identity-arguments, spark, dedev, etc.) are great

Framework

• Sometimes not having a framework in your first speech could be strategic. However, make sure to introduce a framework later on into the debate.
• Util framing honestly sucks, it is basically a lazy way out for most ppl to say "they have a framework" without actually using framing strategy. Saying you don't have a framework is honestly better than saying "Default to util". This is because util isn't really a moral argument or a weighing mechanism.
• The "Structural violence" epidemic in PF. Structural violence framing isn't a bad framework, but, so many people make structural violence their framework these days without even solving for any violence. Many people read structural violence framing without even addressing the structures, and most of the time probably make the structures even worse through scapegoating and commodification. In other words, please read this only if you actually address the violent structures and mindsets in our world.
• Extinction framing is alright, make sure to justify why i should prioritize extinction first though.

How I will evaluate a round

• Tech > truth. The best persuasion is evidence, logical reasoning, and the debate on the flow. I am personally not a fan of debaters that attempt to "gaslight" or "verbally persuade" the judge by saying things that has no warrants.
• Framework comes first. I will evaluate the round based on the framework that won the framing debate. If one team present a framework that is uncontested, then I will automatically use this framework to evaluate the round. If no team present a framework or I believe that framework debate is a wash, I will default to util. However, this absolutely DOES NOT mean that whoever wins the framework debate will automatically win the whole round, all I will do is use that framework to evaluate the impacts in the round.
• I don't care about ethos at all.I will only judge the debate off the flow. The way you speak and your ethos will only affect your speaker points, not the actual RFD. Furthermore, if by trying to appeal to ethos you fail in pathos and logos then you may not be satisfied with your speaks and RFD.
• Clash is key. An argument without any clash grants the argument 100% probability. A debate without clash means bye-bye for your speaks.
• (PF and Policy only) I will NOT evaluate an argument that doesn't have cards to support it.Minor logical reasoning is fine, but when you try to use logic instead of evidence for your whole case, then that becomes a problem.
• Scholarly evidence >>>>> Opinion Articles.If a theme is a wash in the debate, I might break the tie by seeing which side has better cards.
• I will evaluate non-traditional arguments.I 100% believe that arguments like Ks, theory, identity-arguments, dedev, spark, and other non-traditional arguments have a stage in ALL formats of debate (yes, even in PF, CNDF and parliamentary debate). In fact, I might give you a slight speaker point boost if you run a non-traditional argument really well, because that requires serious skill. However, this is a double-edged sword, if you do not run a non-traditional argument well you will lose a ton of speaker points as progressive arguments are a very serious issue to discuss in debate.

PLEASE DO NOT DO THESE THINGS

• Saying that your opponent dropped an argument in your speech without your opponent actually dropping it. If you think your opponent actually dropped and argument, then sure you can say it; but if you try to "gaslight" me by saying your opponents dropped an argument even though they really didn't repeatedly, I will cap you speaks at 27.5. In my opinion, this is the WORST practice many debaters do nowdays, and it is terrible for the fairness, education, and value of any formats of debate.
• Yap about claims in your entire speech without actually giving me any warrants, framing, nor weighing. I will NEVER evaluate A CLAIM WITHOUT A WARRANT.
• New refs in summary/ff, dont do this, i wont flow this, and ur speaks will not be good
• Forgetting to extend your constructive and refutations in summary/ff
• Forgetting to clash directly with your opponents' arguments. Make sure, if possible, to do line-by-line refutation.
• EVIDENCE EXPLOITING. I will be calling for evidence that i think is sus at the end of the round to ensure fairness and legitimacy. Nowdays ppl fabricate their ev. way too much especially in pf and policy. I will cap your speaks at 26 if I found that you PURPOSELY exploited a paraphrasing on an evidence.
• Yap about random evidences and arguments that I dont know where to put on my flow. In other words, please clearly SIGNPOST your speech.
• Have links to cards without the carded version of the cards. This is horrible. This shows that you have 0 understanding of the card and just read off what your coach wrote. Please do not do this. This will not factor into my RFD, but it will factor into your speaks.
• No. Stealing. Prep. You should NOT be prepping when you ask your opponent to send a card.
• Swearing is not allowed in debate.

Speaker Points

Note: I will NOT be adjusting my criteria for evaluation and speaker points based on the division this debate is happening. I think this is quite stupid to do as I think the rubric should be generalized for all levels of debate. In other words, if you are Novice, I will NOT go easier for you when judging a debate compared to Varsity. Going easier is first of all kinda disrespectful to you and also is not fair to Varsity debaters.

• 30: Revolutionary speech - genuinely changed my entire life and my worldview on things.
• 29.5-29.9: Extraordinary speech - perhaps one of the best speeches in a tournament and exceeded all my expectations completely.
• 29-29.5: Great speech - A speech that met all my criterias listed above and exceeded my expectations.
• 28.5-29: Above average speech - A speech that met all my criterias listed above.
• 28-28.5: Average speech - A speech that met most of my criterias listed above.
• 27.5-28: Below Average Speech - A speech that only somewhat met my criterias listed above.
• 27-27.5: Disappointing Speech - Did not follow my instructions, a speech that barely met my criterias listed above. (E.g. Yapped too much, all claims without warrants, tried to somewhat gaslight me)
• 26.5-27: Bad speech - Either did not follow ANY of my instructions OR purposely tried to gaslight me. I take the issue of gaslighting VERY seriously. It is perhaps one of the worst practices in the squo in debate (esp. in CNDF and parli formats), and this MUST end. If you try to gaslight me by lying to me CONSISTENTLY and PURPOSELY, this is the speaks ur gonna get, and probably even lower than this. This is probably the lowest speaks someone can get if they tried their best.
• 26-26.5:Terrible speech - Clearly the debater didn't even try or make an effort in this speech (aka just wanted to get this over with)
• 25-26: Incomplete Speech - the debater did not give a speech, gave a speech that is WAY TOO SHORT (<1 minute), and/or was completely incomprehensible (without sending a speech doc).
• <25: Unacceptable Speech - You did something racist, sexist, or extremely discriminatory on purpose. Probably u will get a 0 tbh in this case.

My Other Preferences

• Spreading is fine - but please send me a speech doc BEFOREHAND (not afterhand) if you are gonna spread. If you dont want to send a speech doc thats fine but then ur arguments just wont be on my flow
• Progressive argumentation is fine. Everything in debate is debatable.
• I prefer to send cards through google docs instead of email. Please also add me to your email chain/google docs chain if you are gonna do that
• Unless if your cards are uniqueness cards, I won't really judge your card based on the date.
• Cards with authors and are made by scholars are ALWAYS better than Opinion articles made by random journalists.
• I might call for cards at the end of the debate.
• Please weigh your arguments in a debate
• I always like it when debaters where formal clothing such as a tie.
• I LOVE creative arguments. Stock arguments are boring, bring something new to the table :)

Feel free to ask before the round start if you have anymore questions about by paradigm.

Good luck in your debate rounds and I look forward to judging you!

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

She/her pronouns.

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that it can be more convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via blessingtejumoluwa@gmail.com

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Hello,

I am Opoola Opeyemi. I am a seasoned debater and an experienced judge.

I am quite versatile and experienced in different forms of debating such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debating format (WSDC) , Public Forum debates (PF), Parliamentary Debates, Spar debates and so on.

As a judge, I proritize logic and sufficient analysis; how speakers are able to logically defend their side without missing any logical link and showing why their arguments win the debate.

I also pioritze Equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants, as I prioritize a safe and friendly atmosphere for debate.

I will very much appreciate if you don't rush with your speeches, however I will be willing to note whatsoever you give as arguments during the round.

Thank you!

She/her pronouns

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that I can be convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com

Flay judge.

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 including Public forums and have a satisfactory knowledge of Lincoln Douglas, Congress, Parliamentary Debate, Etc. therefore, looking forward to judging rounds of it. I am a debate coach at the Faculty of Education Debate Club, University of Ilorin, and also a member of the University’s Debate Club (UILDC).

Email Chain: usmanaduragbemi77@gmail.com

Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, Etc.

• Remember, in these debates, 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.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com