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

Timothy Adediran is also a dedicated public speaker and debater whose life is all about the sport. In just a matter of few a year, Timothy has grown from not just a brilliant speaker to a mind-blowing adjudicator and brilliant coach, he's achievements moves from being the Deputy Chief Adjudicator Public Speaking All Nigerian University Debating Championship(the biggest debate tournament in Nigeria) amongst other CAP appointments to being an excellent coach.

His greatness has rubbed off on his student as he is not just one to coach without making an impact and bringing the best speaker out of you.

Having Timothy in your tournament means you're up for a fun and learning experience. From relations to speakers and fellow judges to the ability of being able to give critical feedback that'd push a significant level of self development. So, when your judge is named TIMOTHY ADEDIRAN, congratulations because no matter what the rankings may be, you're walking out of the tournament a winner.

Timothy believes he's an average intelligent voter while judging and only judges the debate based on what has happened in the debate room. Even his feedback critically explained things the speakers might have done better in that room that would have given them a higher ranking.

There is no need to pressurize yourself, just know that with TIMOTHY ADEDIRAN, you're becoming the best version of yourself.

Hello, I am Ayanfe Victoria Adeyeye.

I consider myself a flay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats, including Public Forum, Policy Debate, Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Declamation.

I have no conflicts of interest, so feel free to reach out to me at ayanfevictoria030@gmail.com.

Please make sure your arguments are well-organized, coherent, and well-supported.

I prefer you speak at a manageable pace so I can clearly hear and provide appropriate feedback.

Also, ensure you adhere to the debating rules and policies.

Happy debating!

Since 2022 I have been a judge and have experience in various debate formats, including British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools (WSDC), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and SPAR. I have also judged speech events like Storytelling, Interpretive Reading, and Impromptu Speaking.

Here are some tournaments I’ve judged:

Dempsey Cronin Memorial, 2022 & 2023 – SPAR Finals Judge

Princeton IV, 2024 – ESL Semi-Finals Panelist.

Asian Pacific World Schools Debating Championships 2024 - U16 Finals Chair, Open Finals Panelist.

African Nations Debating League, 2023 – Grand Finals Panelist, 2nd Best Judge.

Guangdong Debate Challenge, 2023 – Novice Semi-Finals Panelist.

I enjoy clear, well-structured arguments and speeches that are relevant and delivered with confidence and a generally convenient speaking speed,

During speech events, I focus on authenticity, creativity, and strong character development.

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.

Hi! I am Ryan (he/him), a college student and coach of Archbishop Molloy HS. I did Speech in HS for 3 years and had success on the local level (qualled for States/NCFLS). I coach most events offered, but even if I don't, I have had relative experience judging and learning about it over the last few years.

I highly prefer email chains, please send to rcurran@molloyhs.org

TLDR; I can judge trad/prog rounds, but don't be too pushy (explanation below). I am fine with speed, but don't do so without checking w opponents. Tech over truth, but don't abuse that to the highest limits! Oh and also weigh, because idk why I hear very little nowadays. Keep ample timing for it plz

HAVE FUN IN UR ROUNDS! I love silly/fun rounds and I think its a way for everyone to relax and take a little breather from being in the S&D world.

DISCLAIMER- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud and clear. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. I am fine with speed, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. Also, if I cannot hear/understand you, I will say a verbal/nonverbal clear (either comes down as to what you prefer).

Accommodation Note: PLEASE disclose to your opponents about anything, whether you are more of a prog/trad debater, if you spread, etc. It makes things easier, especially if you go against someone who has a disability. Debate is an educational activity, and should be accessible for everyone :)

Stole from WK Kay's paradigm:

Read this article.After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear:I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

PF and LD:

Pref List--

Trad- 1

Policy-1

Theory/T- 2 (I like it when explained clearly but I don't suck up for friv theory that easily)

K- 2/3 (ensure you provide links and alt)

Phil-3/4 (not as familiar with it other than Util, bit of Kant, etc)

Tricks- Strike

Overall debate pref-- Consider me as a half prog half lay judge. I love hearing debates that are unique and stand out but note that I started coaching/learning debate less than 2 years ago. I still love traditional debate just as much, also because it's the most familiar I am with when I was on the team and now. However, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant, as well as tricks).

Speed/Spreading-- I am fine with speed (as mentioned before), but let your opponents know before round. It makes me frown like this :( when varsity debaters spread/run progressive args without checking in with those beforehand or novices

Frameworks-- If you use a FW in a round, make sure to extend it the whole round. Even in LD, where I will then just eval the round on global util

Rebuttals/Extensions-- I grouped these two together because I need these two to be properly balanced and clear. Even w speed in round, I need a flow that tells me there are arguments carried over. Don't just give a 1-2 sentence extension for your case, really explain the essence of your args and their uniqueness.

Miscellaneous stuff--

Tech > Truth, but please for the love of god, don't abuse that. There are limits I will look at where there's absurd arguments (similar to what I said before about tricks)

Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.

Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.

Same thing with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just be short and simple.

I do flow most of the debate, including cross-ex, just keep that in mind. I've been flowing on my laptop more, but that does not mean I will be look at speech docs consistently. I usually check the docs if I need to check any cards, but I do not rely on them.

Congress:

I have realized that my preference for Congressional Debate may be different than others, so I wanted to list down some stuff I like to see in a chamber/round:

• Be clear and precise in your speech. Quality will outweigh quantity in my eyes. Even if you have 1-2 points in your speech, you have enough time to state your data, analysis, and more within each of them.
• Parliamentary procedure is key! I want to know that your performance is on point not just through your speeches, but your delivery of motions before/during/after.
• I have seen more walking in speeches the last year or so. I like it, but don't be too excessive.
• Clash clash clash.

Presiding Officer- I commend students who have taken on this role. It is not an easy feat, and can be screwed over during rounds. I will always start my PO within the Top 3-5 of the chamber.

• However, you are going to have to be consistent with your recency/overall charts. Take control of the round and stand your ground if needed.
• If you are doing an online tournament, I would highly recommend using index cards when giving time signals. There are references you can find on YouTube where previous PO's at nat circuit tournaments have used them.

Speech:

There's really nothing I have specific in terms of preferences for Speech, since it is typically obvious with the rules under each event.

• But, I will say that I am not a huge fan of excessive walking (as said before with Congress). I did Oratory, so I have seen and judged numerous speeches where this happens.
• In interp events, I really like technical use of the room/binder/piece. It can be hard sometimes, but note that this is a strong factor I take into account when judging.

If there are any specific questions you have before or after a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.

NSDA endorsed speech coach.

For speech: I view judging speech events the same way that I view casting a play or musical. I have a problem: determining who is the best competitor in the event. The competitors have the solution. Be confident. Make a choice - even if it's not a great one. Present the best of yourself and your skills in that moment. Much like theatre, I want to see a well rehearsed piece with the "illusion of the first time."

I will strive to provide you with positives and areas for improvement.

For debate, I am looking for a clear, logical argument and line of reasoning, well supported with unquestionable sources. Deliver with the skills and confidence of a speech competitor. Solid counterarguments and a good defense/response to questioning moves you ahead in the rankings.

1.

1. Judge’s Name: Vincent Gaviyao

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience?

e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience?

d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

c. TED talk speed (150-200 wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal, I consider it a dropped argument.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based entirely in my notes.

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

I believe that public forum debate is all about persuasion using ethos, pathos, and/or logos. The major criteria I use to make my decision include engagement, evidence, and impact weighing. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you manage to execute these three key areas effectively. Therefore, the team with the better claim, warrant, and impact wins the round.

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

Nothing really, just enjoy the competition and good luck everyone

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). I'm okay with technical terms however try to focus on impact rather than using evidences which is vaguely connected to the main contentions.

I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Good luck !

General Expectations of Me (Considerations for Your Attention)

I typically operate at a "flay" level on average and "flow" level on good days. Here are things you shouldn't expect from me:

1. Assumptions About My Knowledge: Always explain things fully as I may not be familiar with what you know.

2. Post-round Feedback: You're welcome to post-round me, and I'm open to feedback, but it won't necessarily change my decision. All influencing factors must occur during the debate.

3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions:I'll disclose in elimination rounds unless instructed otherwise. In prelims, disclosure is not expected unless explicitly stated.

4. Clarity Over Speed: I flow on paper, so speaking too quickly may cause me to miss points. Remember, defense isn't sticky in PF; coverage and clarity matter.

5. Debate Philosophy: I prioritize technical arguments over truth by a narrow margin. I aim to identify the debate's winner based on the participants' performance.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Speaker Points:

- I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Clarity, fluidity, confidence, and decorum are crucial.

- Avoid yelling at opponents during cross and maintain proper decorum throughout the round.

Structure/Organization:

- Signposting is essential for clarity and coherence. Lack of signposting can lead to confusion.

Framework (FW):

- In PF, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless specified otherwise. In LD, a clear Value and Value Criterion are necessary.

Regarding the Decision (RFD):

- I judge tabula rasa, relying only on what I hear in the round. Dropped points and extensions are crucial but must be clearly articulated.

SPEED:

- I'm a paper flow judge and don't flow on a computer. Avoid spreading or speed reading; clarity in communication is vital.

---

Should other considerations arise, I'll update this list accordingly

I approach debates with an open mind, seeking to provide constructive feedback and promote a positive educational experience for all participants. As a judge, I strive to be fair, impartial, and attentive to the arguments presented in each round.

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and effective communication. Debaters need to engage in thoughtful analysis, support their claims with evidence, and demonstrate logical reasoning. I encourage debaters to be respectful, considerate, and inclusive in their interactions with others.

In evaluating rounds, I consider several factors, including (But not limited to):

1. Content: I assess the strength and clarity of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the logical coherence of the presented case.

2. Delivery: I take into account the debaters' speaking skills, including articulation, tone, and the ability to effectively engage with the audience.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: I value debaters' ability to engage with opposing arguments, provide effective rebuttals, and engage in meaningful clashes with their opponents.

4. Strategy: I appreciate strategic decision-making, including the ability to adapt to the debate's flow, utilize time efficiently, and construct persuasive narratives.

5. Etiquette: I expect all participants to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, respect, and professionalism. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language will not be entertained.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debates, and I look forward to a productive and enjoyable tournament.

Hello there

My name is Sofia, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, Big question and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• 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.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

I have judged various tournaments and I am here to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine which team has done the better job of persuading me. I am not an expert in debate, so I will not be able to follow complex arguments or jargon. I am looking for debaters who are clear, concise, and persuasive. I will also be considering your delivery and demeanor when making my decision

specific things I will be looking for would be clarity on arguments, way of delivery, persuasiveness, conciseness and demeanor

I will not be swayed by speed, volume and debate jargons

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, 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 analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is 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 AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• 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.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. 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.

Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir . I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered 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 enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they engage the opponent's arguments while making their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge adjudicate the debate.

I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.

When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy it when they stick to their assigned tasks.

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 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 a partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after the stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Hey there

As a judge, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I 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.

Best wishes

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!

Hi there,

My name is Oyewumi Emmanuel Oluwatobi, I am a student at the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. I am a seasoned debater, public speaker and judge, with over 2 years involvement in debating. I am 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), Public Forum (PF), WSDC, Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Declamation

Email address: oyewumioluwatobi2@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE

I think of debate as a way to share ideas on different matters and make those ideas stronger by pointing out flaws and loopholes in them. I also see it as a game of arguments and whoever's argument that has the least flaws, provides accommodations for those flaws or prove why their arguments regardless of those flaws matter wins.

I have experience in British Parliamentary and public forum debate format, both speaking and judging. Though I prefer speaking. I am an ESL speaker, so I would also like people to know that, so it's not hard to understand you when you're speaking.

Lastly, I'm a nice person, and I like every debater in any round I am judging to be nice to one another and learn from each other. So, there is no need to be rude to each other in a debate round.

It's my belief that in every round, even if one loses, there is always something to learn, something to improve on.

Looking forward to working together. Thank you

Hello, I'm Mary Sandals. I have accumulated expertise in a variety of debating styles and formats over a long period of time, including Public Forum (PF), World School Debate Championship (WSDC), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australians, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), and British Parliamentary (BP).

Speakers should, I suppose, be knowledgeable about the various motion sorts, the kinds of arguments that ought to be made in them, how to bear their burdens, and other tactics for debating.
In my experience as a judge, presenters who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing—which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own—tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge will decide the argument.

I like it when a whip or summary speaker understands that their role is not to offer opinions and stays true to their given duties.

It seems to me that speakers should be aware of the kinds of arguments that belong in each kind of motion, how to complete their burdens and other strategies employed in debating.

I like it when debaters stay true to their duties; for example, when a whip or summary speaker understands that their function is to refute, strengthen, and justify their partner's position, rather than to present new ideas.

AYYYYYY I’m glad you decided to give up your weekend to come here and debate. Trust me I know how you feel, I was in y'all's shoes not long ago lol. I know these tournaments can get very tedious. I'm not old...so feel free to make pop culture references, play music during prep, be very casual. I remember how nervous I used to be when I debated in high school lol, just think of this as a normal round, y'all are just 2 high schoolers yapping about policies. I choose to be very relaxed and chill because its not that deep. (Unless y'all are at state or summ) Extra point if y'all can make me laugh :) have fun be creative etc etc.

About me:
I went to SHS, class of 2024, and I currently attend the University of Texas at Austin (hook 'em). Debate was my most enjoyable activity in high school, and I want it to be yours as well. Just have fun and good luck!

I debated both in TFA/NSDA and UIL, so I know the best of both worlds. I have very different standards for each format, so make sure you adjust accordingly :) (lmk if you have any questions)

TFA/NSDA: (LD/CX)

Short Paradigm:

The best way to win is to write the ballot out for me lol. Take like 30 seconds and simplify it down a little...that might actually get u the win :) its all about me understanding what is going in the round, if I am confused because you didn't explain something well or blasted through the arguments...it is what it is. For LD I tend to prefer traditional rounds more :)

Longer:

Arguments and Clash

• Be specific. Don’t just reference “this and that card”—explain the argument clearly. (Roadmaps definitely help)

• Go line by line in rebuttals; it makes the round easier for me to follow and helps you stay organized. (I will flow the round diligently but tell me where things go)

• Impact calc is a must—always compare impacts in terms of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

• Voters- tell me why I should vote for you...warrants, extensions, drops should all be highlighted AND explained.

• Send me everything Srijansharma668@gmail.com...I like having this so I can quickly glance at it. I will try to flow you as much as I can. Also please don't make me look at the doc instead of you the whole time...I should not have to read your case along with you ur whole speech to understand what it is about, literally just give me the Uniqueness, link, impact slowly.

• Lastly, do what works for you, if there is anything I can to do make the round more accessible let me know.

Progressive thingz :)

• K/Kaffs: These debates can get very messy, unless you are 1000% confident in your ability to articulate, explain and warrant your arguments, try to steer away from these.

• Theory - I loveee theory debates, especially when there is a clear violation. (There is always a potential for abuse in round, however my threshold for proving abuse is high.) Structure your shell well (interpretation, violation, standards, voters), and allocate sufficient time to make it convincing. Tell me why this is such a big deal instead of just blasting through it.

• Topicality: Same thing as theories, explain it well...competing interps are always welcome.

• DA/Adv. Make sure DAs link with the Aff well. Aff make sure you have a framework or value/criteria. Send me the docs for anything you run.

• Tricks/Spikes: Guys Idek what the point of this is in debate...if I don't understand it I won't vote for it.
• THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT: If you run anything related to theory, T, specs, evals, critical over/under views etc...if you spread this part I will not evaluate it. No questions asked. You NEED to slow down and explain...so many people blast through these and the round gets very messy :(

Spreading

• I never spread in debate because think about it when in real life will you ever need to speak that fast. Debate is about improving public speaking skills for the long term. I don't like spreading but if you absolutely do need to spread... do it right tagline, author, date should be clear and I don't want the rebuttals to be you spreading the whole time, do the debating part :) I flow you not the doc...so if I miss something because you spread...that's on you. (Also the gasping for air is crazy and scary sometimes...Plz breathe lol)

Speaks: Legitimately it depends on how well you speak, the whole point of speaker points are to show how well you speak, (I don’t really agree with the whole idea of the winner has to have higher speaks, that's not always true) As long as you are a good speaker you’ll be fine. Please be nice, if your opponent is new/novice and you are mean/rude...your speaks will tank >:(

UIL LD:

I love my UIL folks (Fun fact I did UIL before I did TFA)

I am iffy about running any progressive arguments such as CPs, Ks, K-affs etc, if you want to run those arguments TFA tournaments offer the perfect environment to practice them... its going to be v sad if you run these and you opponent is like "what" :( the only thing I allow is theories as there is always a potential for abuse...(if ur opp runs one of these progressive arguments...a theory will make me v happy :)

Value/Criterion

• I’m big on value/criterion debate in UIL. Your case should establish a clear framework and clash meaningfully with your opponent’s. Winning the framework debate can often win you the round. (Unless we drop down to the contention level debate)

• UIL LD is about philosophy and persuasion. If you can make me walk away from the round having learned something new, you’ve already won in spirit—even if the ballot doesn’t reflect it.

Clash and Voters

• Give me voters in your final speeches. If the round is close, voters will help me evaluate the debate and make a decision.
• Signposting is very important. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments throughout the round.
• Quality over quantity. I would rather hear two strong, well-articulated arguments than four rushed ones. UIL is not about cramming as much as possible; it’s about clarity and persuasion.

• Speak clear and confidently...nothing to be afraid of :)

Almost there phew...

• Debate should be fun and educational. Respect your opponent and create a positive atmosphere.
• I will not tolerate racism, sexism, or any form of discriminatory behavior in my debate room.

CX:

I have seen a couple of CX rounds in high school. I would say I'm a stock issues judge for the most part. I will vote for anything as long as it is warranted properly. About the different elements of CX just refer to my prog. LD paradigm above. Its the exact same. Also CX rounds can get long, there can be a lot of contents thrown out, make sure you crystalize at the end. Overall as long as you give me voters and a good line by line we are goood :)

Public Forum:

I didn't compete in public forum as much in high school but I do know what the rounds look like. Make sure you tell me who is what speaker number and who is going first before the round. I will always ask. Argument wise, there should be clear clash. I need you to tell me who is winning what argument and why. Do not spread, and always sign post to what you will be talking about. This is more like UIL LD in my opinion so just refer to it above.

Extemp:

Good hook will get the job done. I need good/clear points from you I try to flow all the speeches in the comments section. I evaluate you based off: your speech content (Authors, Dates, Websites and stats), your delivery (emphasis, coherence and speed), your body language (extemp walk, using your hands, eye contact). A good speech should never be rushed. As for the time, try to around 7:00 mins, but don't go past 7:30.

Good luck :D (feel free to email me any questions regarding the round or anything else AFTER the tournament/round)

With a distinguished record spanning 5 years, I bring a wealth of experience and insight to the world of debating. Over the course of my journey, I've had the privilege of attending numerous tournaments, each one serving as a milestone in my growth and development as a judge.

My expertise encompasses a wide array of prestigious events, including the renowned World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), EUDC, where I've not only participated but also adjudicated with precision and fairness. Furthermore, I've lent my adjudicative skills to the United Asian Debating Championships (UADC), navigating the complexities of argumentation.

In addition to my involvement in WUDC and UADC, I have honed my skills across various debate formats, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) and speech formats including HI, Improv, OO among others. This versatility has equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the diverse nuances and strategies inherent in different styles of debate.

I am also a big believer of feedback because that is how we all grow, so speakers can be rest assured of accurate and logical feedback.

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!

My experiences in Public Forum and Congressional debating may are considerably sufficient. I possess a wide variety of experiences in British Parliamentary and World Schools debate styles that has provided me with skills in discernment and of course, listening techniques to establish comparative, objective and fair judgement, as well as feedback to speakers - which I believe, all hold similar principles to PF and congress styles. Below are some of my criteria for judging in terms of my expectation for speakers during rounds;

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive Debate while not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed and flow: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Biography:

Growing up in the suburbs of Kansas City, Mercedes was deeply involved in Speech and Debate community during high school. She competed in various debate formats, including policy, congressional and public forum with the opportunity to compete at the national level in public forum her senior year. She also participated in interpretation events such as duo and dramatic interpretation, competing annually at the state level.

Currently, Mercedes serves as a coach for Citron and supports business development for an AmLaw 200 firm. Additionally, she serves as the programming chair for the Kansas City chapter of the Legal Marketing Association and part of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Executive MBA Class of 2026.

Odds & ends:

• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• I love a line by line analysis of the flow and weighing of impacts.
• If something is important, please slow down and/or state it again.
• Don’t rely on me to connect the dots of your arguments.
• I appreciate decorum and respect. It may not impact my overall decision for the round but it will definitely impact speaker points.

Available for private coaching:

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

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.