Georgetown Fall
2024 — NSDA Campus, DC/US
HS Novice PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi 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 e.g BP, AP, Public Forum, Oratory speeches, Lincoln Douglas, amongst others.
I'm also quite familiar with judging these debating styles on tabroom as well.
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.
I am a lay judge but keep doing what you have been doing all year. Make sure we converse respectfully and professionally throughout and make sure we rebuff the other team's arguments while providing further and relevant support of our own. Good luck!
Hello, my name is Anene, Ebubechukwu Anthony. I am a multiple award winning debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.
Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, including but not limited to; 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 take equity issues very seriously, so I expect speakers to follow all equity rules. I advise speakers to attack arguements and not speakers.
Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles.
I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.
In debate, I value burden fulfillment, role fulfillment, 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.
- Hello, I am a high school teacher and debate coach. Although my students call me the "layest of the lay", I do have some nuanced positions that may help guide your performances:
PF: Since your cases rely on heavy empirical evidence, please use it to your fullest advantage. Solely using tech to advance your case is not debate, rather, it is an attempt to apply a formula to oratory. Your EVIDENCE and PRESENTATION will ultimately be more persuasive than tech strategies, although they may assist the structure of your arguments, so do not feel required to abandon their use completely.
Parli: Due to Parli's more ad hoc nature, your presentation quality will almost always supersede evidence, unless a blatant falsehood is presented. Use logic as much as possible. POIs, when applicable, nearly always help your case - so use them. POCs and POOs should be used sparingly.
To quote Bob Sheppard, a talented speaker possesses three qualities: "clear, concise, and correct".
I find crossfire gives the best chance for me to examine how well you can hold your argument, be willing to question and counteract - while being respectful to competitors
When bringing up content in constructive and rebuttals, make sure to address it later on and not lose the argument in the midst of competitors points
Maximize the amount of content, I'm fine with fast speech - but make sure it has substance first
B.A. in International Studies at American University, Washington D.C. - School of International Service, December 2024
niles north 23, kentucky 27
general
--technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that concessions (with warrants) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.
--topic research is good, backfile slop is not. research is my favorite part of the activity and I will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)
--organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.
--please use email chains, not speech drop. have proper subject lines with the tournament, round, and teams.
LD
--everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)
if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!
I'm still quite new to judging PF. Be clear in your arguments,,, I appreciate off-time road maps.
I won't flow cross, but I am listening
Add me to the email chain: imginachen@gmail.com
Please don't spread, don't use too much debater jargon, and most importantly, be kind. :-)
Hi,
I am a parent judge with some judging experience. I value well-constructed arguments, clarity, and logic. I prioritize well-explained impacts over flashy statistics—a smaller impact that’s carefully explained and connected to your case will get my vote over a big number with weak reasoning.
I include crossfire in my judging and look for clear, respectful communication. Professionalism is important in my judging—being rude can cost you the round. For the speaker points, I prefer a calm and professional delivery over emotional or dramatic presentations. Slight speed is okay, but please speak at an understandable pace.
I usually don’t disclose my decision after the round. I time the speeches but recommend that debaters keep track of time themselves as well.
Good luck!
(He/Him)
School Affiliation: Speech and Debate India
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 5
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 5 (Won Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, and Georgetown University tournaments)
Current Occupation: Student at Melbourne University
Speech documents would be appreciated, not mandated. Please send them to: prahladmadhu2@gmail.com.
BREATHE. Debate can get really intimidating, competitive, etc. SO BREATHE. Before the round, during the round, and after the round (I know that's really hard). Most importantly, have fun. The best rounds come about when everyone is enjoying themselves.
I have been doing debate for over 5 years, so I am well-versed in most things debate-related. I listen, take notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other.
Please read below (yes, it's pretty lengthy) to understand the way I think and what I will and will not vote for in the round.
Please focus on these areas if you want to win a round:
Substantiate your contention with impact and remember to extend: impact calculus and weighing are by far the most important things in debate. All impacts should be extended in each speech, and you should emphasize the impacts you want me to vote on in the final focus. You are at liberty to set the criteria by which you will be judged. Please do so and then explain why and how you think you won according to these criteria, why your opponent lost, and why their criteria did not produce a winning outcome for them.
During cross-fire and rebuttals, challenge and effectively defend—I am not going to be flowing cross-ex but will be paying attention. Do not ask for a source during cross-ex. If opponents have conceded something in cross-example, extend it in the next speech. Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer.
I flow everything in the round, so make sure to clearly address all arguments in the round. If it is not in my flow, I consider it a dropped argument. I will not make connections for you, so if there's anything important and the opposition is dropped, EXTEND IT. Don't give me "Extend the Henry card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that. If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention, then make clear what that contention is. Try your hardest not to get bogged down in smaller issues and tangents; stick to the main clashes and make it clear that you win them in your summary and final focus.
Evidence: I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find, and then use your prep time for the remainder of the time it takes you to send the card. I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather you read cut cards. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's. If you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.
Weighting: Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why one argument matters more than another. This makes the round wholistic. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote. I don’t evaluate new weighing in the second final focus or new points post-summary speeches. If no team weighs, I will probably just vote for the FF.
SPEED: Everyone doing debate wants to go as quick as a racecar, and I would be lying if I said I haven't spread in PF. I am a flow judge, but since I have done debate before, I am okay with whatever speed you want to go at, as long as the opponents and I are able to comprehend whatever you are saying. Signposting is critical, but in the rare case I have trouble, I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.
Post Debate:
1. It is perfectly fine if you disagree with my decision (again, I'd be lying if I said I haven't disagreed with judges). I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward.
2. I will tend to vote with my gut unless the round is incredibly close. It shouldn't take me longer than 5 minutes to decide a debate. If it does, the debate was probably super close; you guys were gods!
3. I talk a lot in RFDs.
Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.
I am a flow judge, I have done public forum before which means I am generally fine with speed. However, if you speak too fast or you are not being clear to the point where I can not understand your points, I will not consider it as a voter for the round. I do listen to crossfire, however, I do not flow crossfire. Therefore you need to tell me what happened in the crossfire that is important for your side in your speeches.
If you want me to vote for you, you need to extend your argument in both summary and final focus. Weighing is also really important, I would prefer all teams to weigh so that the round will be more clear. Evidence is important in the round, however, if it doesn't logically make sense, I will not vote of it. I would prefer signposting in your speeches as this is going to help me follow your case and ideas better.
Keep track of your time and your opponents time. I'll trust you on prep.
Don't go over time because it will impact your speaking score.
Tldr: I competed in policy debate and public forum debate for all four years of high school. Go for whatever you want as long as it’s not offensive and it’s explained well. Make sure you’re respectful to everybody and have fun!
Pittsburgh Central Catholic ‘23
Pitt ’27 (not debating)
hudsonnoah0482@gmail.com (please include me on any email chain)
PF: Good impact calc/weighing will help you win the round. Especially love pre-req arguments. This goes beyond just having a large number and repeating it. Make sure you have a clear link story that’s explained well and you should be fine. Everything needs to extended properly for you to go for it in final focus. A good comparison of arguments will be valued highly. This means not just repeating your argument and your opponents’ arguments, but explaining why your argument is better and why it matters. I don’t flow cross-ex but I’ll definitely pay attention. Off time roadmaps are fine, just make sure your speeches are organized. As the debate comes to an end you should limit the amount of arguments you go for. You should not be going for 5 arguments on each contention in FF.
Policy: It’s been a while since I’ve done policy, so make sure you explain everything clearly. Tech>truth. If something is conceded you still have to explain it and why it matters. Make sure you extend all arguments you plan on going for later. To be honest, I’m not too great with Ks. I’ll still definitely vote on it, you just need to make sure you’re clearly explaining everything, that includes any jargon. Make sure you have strong and preferably specific links to everything. Good impact calc will help you win a da. Probably won’t vote off of T unless if the plan is super abusive. Still feel free to run it.
Learning judge. Please speak clearly and slowly as much as possible.
For me, debate is more than just the technical arguments presented; I’m interested in how debaters present themselves, engage with their opponents, and demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand from different angles.
I value emotional appeal, clarity, and respect in discourse. Debaters should be persuasive, eloquent, and thoughtful in their delivery, and avoid overly aggressive or hostile tactics.
Appreciate all your efforts and passion to make a joyful tournament together!
Good luck!
you can earn my vote by being explicit and clear with weighing. summary & ff are key to winning.
- please dont spread
- i dont flow cross
- not a fan of kritiks or theory
email is li.vivian.yuwei@gmail.com.
Student Judge- 4 years experience in Varsity PF
Be sure to extend your contentions through FF
- trad tech, tech > truth
- PLEASE signpost
- i don't flow cross
- if u have any questions, ask me (or email before round)
- all cases to brianliu806@gmail.com BEFORE speech
Penn 26
Debated pf on nat circuit for 2 years at Peddie
lay judge
debate however you feel most comfortable, I'll adapt to you
say kobe is the goat for good speaks, or make a good reference for an auto 30
I'm a parent judge.
Please speak clearly and coherently, or I might be able to catch what you are saying.
truth > tech.
Be respectful and have fun!
Hey! i'am Nirmal and i'am a sophomore at Theodore Roosevelt. I debate on the national circuit and this is my 2nd year doing pf.
TLDR: I am a flow judge
Substance-
Tech>Truth, which means I will vote on any argument.
Please frontline (respond to your opponent's rebuttal) in 2nd Rebuttal.
Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. You must extend (explain) your argument in Summary and Final Focus.
Please weigh/compare your arguments to your opponents, otherwise, it forces me to intervene and decide which arguments I should prioritize.
I won't flow/evaluate crossfire unless it was brought up in the next speech.
Novices:
It's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)
Feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round (especially if you don't understand anything in my paradigm).
I am a lay judge with experience judging a few tournaments, and I value honest, clear, and concise opinions.
I will evaluate based on content, presentation, preparation, well-structured rebuttals, and solid background research.
Speak at a comfortable pace to ensure you express everything you intend to.
Be respectful and considerate of opposing viewpoints.
Use simple, clear vocabulary with good diction to enhance understanding.
Most importantly: learn, grow, and have FUN!
She/her pronouns
I'm an experienced Judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, PD, Congress, Impromtu, extempt., e.t.c.,). I have been actively judging debates for different tournaments over a year now. I have judged with, Winter Championship, Seven Lakes Debate, Loyola Special Scrimmage, Winter Wrap Up, Coolidge Cup Online Qualifier, Havard Intl., VDA Spring Tournament, Forensics, George Town Fall and many more.
I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise. I basically evaluate debates on how clear and concise the arguments are, the depth of the arguments as related to the topic, as well as how sound, unique and innovative the arguments are.
I take notes of key arguments, counterarguments, presentation skills, ability to engage with opponents and critically respond to questions during the cross-examination sessions. I put in writing everything I observe about each speaker and these observations usually helps me in given unbiased judgement.
I value how sound the argument is in terms of Quality (how credible and reliable are the sources), Relevance (how well do the sources support the arguments), Sufficiency (Are there enough sources to support the arguments). I also consider respect, (how respectfully do the debaters engage with each other) and engagement (how engaging and persuasive are the debaters).
I could describe the argument I found most persuasive in my previous debate rounds to be arguments that were constructive in nature , the arguments delivery was audible and clear, there was a good teamwork between the side of the debate, respect for each other was maintained, the arguments were supported with claims and evidences. The team with those qualities won the debate.
I judge each debate based on the arguments presented, not personal opinions or biases and I also ensure all participants are treated equitably, regardless of their style, background, or reputation
As a Judge, I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, evidence, and presentation skills. The team that wins the most points across these aforementioned criteria will win the debate. In cases of a tie, I usually consider the strength of the opposing team's arguments and evidence.
Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com
Hello everyone! I am a current competitor on the Western Kentucky team. I have done this activity for 7 years and been judging/ semi coaching for three so far(Wow I’m getting old). I am more an interp and pa person , although I do judge debate and limited prep as well.Number one rule is on discrimination or disrespect on any ends (race, gender, talking during someone’s speech….etc). I do not take this lightly and will mark you heavily for this. As well as plagiarism of pieces. Now that that’s done I’ll explain each event.
Speech interp: I want to see why the words are coming out your mouth. What do they mean rather the just words on a paper. A full rounded character is what I love! Why are they doing the action that they are doing , why do they have that expression on their face, what background is around them during the speech. ..etc For book events I want to know why this important to talk about right now. I also want a story like conversations that make me on the edge of my seat.
Speech pa: I like out of the box topics I want to be informed on what you are saying. Very similar to the speech interp comments .My only thing for this is over gesturing make sure you are purposeful with why you are doing that hand gesture on the certain phrase or word. Declamation people make sure you are true to the speech you are saying, but add your own flavor to it!
Debate: General, speak clear, consistent and put out your arguments to the fullest extent. I have a processing disorder so I would love if you spoke on a little on the slower side, but I don’t want to stop you from what you have learned. I have judge debate mutiple times before . I like to flow during the debate to compare sides of an argument. Dropped arguments are a frown on my face I rather have something than nothing.
This is my first tournament on the IPR topic just fyi
I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years
I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University
email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com
they/them
Judge is weird and makes me feel old, so please use it sparingly if you don't want to call me nik.
General
Be respectful towards you're opponents
I think pre-round disclosure is good
Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.
I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.
I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.
IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career
___________________________________________________
Tech/Truth
I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be
Disadvantages
I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.
Counterplans
I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.
Kritiks/K-Affs
I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.
T-FW/Framework
I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.
Topicality
A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough
MISC.
Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.
Same with slurs, etc.
I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.
Back ground on me Perry 23' Uk 27' I have judged / competed in almost every debate category. I mostly debated in Policy and I currently debate for Kentucky.
For judging:
Email: Add me to the email chain Resl227@g.uky.edu Please Name the email chain and use a formate similar to this: Tournament Name-Round # AFF Team v NEG Team.
Arguments:
CP Theory: I am not the judge for a big Counter Plan Competition round or high theory debates. I can judge these rounds I just don't enjoy it. Aside from that you can read whatever you want.
CP General: I also think that CP's need to be explained--tell me what the CP solves and how it is different from the aff etc. Please have some kind of net benefit with the CP. When aff explain the function of the perm and how it avoids the links don't just assert Perm Do Both and move on.
DA's: Love a good DA -- a strong link story is important. Comparative Impact calc is also important.
K's: I think most K arguments are interesting so long as they are explained (don't just expect me to have read all the same literature that you have etc.).
T: This is a hit or miss with me. I am not super familiar with the HS topics that could work in the favor of the Neg. Just like everything else I need you to explain to me why this matters what the violations is etc.
Round Etiquette: Tag cross is fine. Overall just be respectful of me and your opponents and we should be good.
Cliff Notes: Debate is supposed to be fun and educational. I am here not to insert my own opinions but to judge what is in front of me, and I will do that to the best of my abilities.
Feel free to ask me any clarification questions about my paradigm before the debate starts.
College Policy Debater @ Western Kentucky University. Transferred from Georgia State. 8th year in debate.
"Tech judge". Debate how you want, I am here to judge you, not here to inflate my ego. Bias is inevitable and I try my best to circumvent by predispositions.
My RFD's are normally about 20-30 minutes but due to the Georgetown schedule I will try to keep it briefer but feel free to email me for more information about the round.
this my paradigm and judging record:
https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/postings/judge.mhtml?judge_id=2290953&tourn_id=31892
andy stowers forest
I do anti-trafficking research and judge debate.I also like reading banned books for free from anywhere using the instructions here:this link. Technology is cool!
General
- Please don't be a jerk to your opponents: this is supposed to be fun, not miserable.
- If your argument requires me to believe a certain country's government is a bad actor, you MUST make some attempt to justify this statement.
- If your argument requires me to believe people FROM a certain country are bad actors, I will personally not find this argument persuasive whatsoever.
- Really, any type of argument founded in implicit or explicit identity-based hate will not be persuasive to me at all. Explicit identity-based hate comments will cause me to stop the round and report the matter to tab immediately. Many, many marginalized debaters worked hard to be here and deserve to be respected.
- I want to be on the email chain, please ask for my email in round.
- Mostly tech judge, but tbh more of my subject matter expertise is in direct policy advocacy and consulting work, so I probably care a little more about face validity than your average tech judge.
- Stand to speak or sit to speak, I truly don't care: I'm here to listen to a good debate and I'd prefer y'all debate in the way that's most comfortable for you.
- If you think I'm not flowing during cross, you're correct. Per the rules, say it in your speech or it won't count.
Technical preferences
- If both of you choose extinction as your main impact, absent other clear voters, then I'll probably vote for the extinction scenario that takes everyone out more quickly or with less suffering. You've been warned.
- I think extinction impacts are nearly all non-unique and it's really just a matter of how long it takes vs. how long it would otherwise have taken were the given action not performed. Using extinction impacts as a primary impact is generally more convincing to me if you identify how your side would either delay inevitable climate changeor how it would insulate some part of the human or animal population against full extinction (even if only a small part). Otherwise I kinda just think you're reading cards that you don't fully know how to apply as argumentation.
- I'm fine with speed as long as you're fine with speed: sometimes students simply are not at the level of skill to be spreading as quickly as they are and I strongly encourage you to respect your own skill level in making this assessment.
- On that note, don't spread unless you're going to share your case doc.
- SIGNPOST. if you are doing your case with speed, please slow down for just your contention labels so I can tell very clearly when you are moving between points and whether I have missed something.
- Winning rounds isn't just about having smart arguments, but about being able to explain them in a convincing manner to somebody (the judge) who has had less time than you have with the source material (your case). There's a great quote from BJ Novak about making television that imo applies to debate, I'm paraphrasing tho bc I can't find the original: "you can't just say that the problem was your audience because they were too stupid to understand your script. That's your audience, that's who this is for, if they didn't get it then you didn't write it well enough."
- My goal is to be able to cleanly vote off of flow in rounds: you can make this easier for me by presenting your arguments in the same order or as close to it each time. You can also make this easier for me clearly signposting, and by avoiding irrelevant arguments/explanations.
- For some reason, it's not en vogue to clearly define terms in the resolution, specify framework, or specify a weighing mechanism...if you do these things, you have a better chance at winning my vote
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.
Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.
I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.
Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.
I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.
hey! i'm a PF debater myself - 2 yrs of experience. pronouns she/her
- not too techy so please don't run Ks/theory/prog, won't be able to evaluate them fairly
- fast speaking is fine but please try to enunciate, especially for online tournaments, and no spreading
- i will try to time speeches + prep but please also time yourself!!
- i don't flow cross but i always listen!
- be respectful and kind to your partner, judge, and opponents! don't be racist, homophobic, etc
- will try my best to flow the round, make sure to extend whole arguments with warrant and impact in backhalf
- leaning slightly truth>tech! i won't vote solely off of conceded arguments, looking for biggest/cleanest/best-extended impact
- if you are making an email chain, i want to be on it! yvonne.zhu.2026@holton-arms.edu
- IF YOU GET UP AND DO A 360º TURN WHEN YOU READ A TURN, YOU WILL GET HIGH SPEAKS!!