Hi, my name is Ruqayyah Abbas-Yusuf. Over the years, my involvement in debating has taught me to appreciate debates that are structured, engaging, and purposeful. For me, role fulfillment is the most important aspect of any round. When speakers understand their roles and focus on executing them—whether it’s building the case, advancing key arguments, or dismantling the opposition—it creates a sense of balance and cohesion that makes the debate easy to follow and more compelling. Trying to overstep roles or take on too much often muddles the team’s strategy, so I value speakers who stay focused and play to their strengths.

When it comes to presentation, I prefer a conversational and relatable style. Debate is about persuasion, and I find that speakers who come across as natural and approachable are often the most effective. Speak as though you’re having a thoughtful discussion, not delivering a lecture. Overly formal or stiff language can feel distant and unnecessary, and I believe in connecting with your audience through clarity and simplicity. That said, this doesn’t mean being overly relaxed—professionalism still matters, but it shouldn’t overshadow the message you’re trying to convey.

I’m familiar with several debate formats, including British Parliamentary (BP), Public Forum (PF), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, and World Schools Debate (WSDC). Each format has its quirks and expectations, and I really appreciate debaters who show they’ve taken the time to understand these. Whether it’s the dynamic interplay of teams in BP, the structured back-and-forth in PF, or the unique challenges of AP, it’s always clear when someone knows the format inside out. It’s not just about following the rules; it’s about adapting arguments to fit the rhythm of the format and using its structure to your advantage. A speaker who understands the nuances of the format makes my job so much easier because their arguments feel intentional and aligned with what the debate demands.

Respect and fairness are non-negotiable in any round. I expect debates to focus on the strength of ideas, not on personal attacks or unnecessary aggression. Equity matters a lot to me, and I hold all speakers to a high standard when it comes to professionalism and respect. Engaging critically and respectfully with your opponents’ arguments is a mark of a strong debater, and I always take this into account when making my decision.

In short, I reward debaters who fulfill their roles effectively, communicate with clarity and confidence, and respect the integrity of the round. Debating is about connection—between ideas, arguments, and people—and those who can bring all of this together while staying true to their roles and format will always stand out.

Ruqayyah Abbas-Yusuf.

aubrettes555@gmail.com

Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker in my fifth year of judging currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

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

Speed/ Rate of Delivery: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I also appreciate when speeches are broken down in cases with technical languages given I consider myself an average intelligent voter

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

Delivery Style: While I agree style isn't a major factor on whether a team is winning I am huge on both valuing both the content of the arguments and how well teams mechanism to prove that argument stands in the round. Considering style plays a huge factor on how speeches fulfill certain burdens i.e structure of arguments ( Analysis, mechanism to prove why that argument is true, CounterOpp where necessary, impact of the arguments, and weighing)

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

Judging of previous rounds most argumentation I consider persuasive are based on how well the analysis are proven and able to stand to well constructed responses and if there is a high impact to that contention being generated at the end of the contention

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

Best of luck.

Timothy Adediran

Speech and Debate Expert | Accomplished Adjudicator | Seasoned Coach

Timothy Adediran is a distinguished figure in the world of speech and debate, celebrated for his exceptional expertise, analytical precision, and unwavering commitment to excellence. As a Deputy Chief Adjudicator (DCA) at prestigious events like the All Nigerian University Debate Championship, the Youth Speech Day Open, and DCA Vamid.zo 2024, Timothy has consistently demonstrated his unparalleled skill in guiding high-level competitions.

Notable accolades include being ranked as the Seventh Best Judge at the Transform Open Arena 3.0 and serving on the Finals Panel at the same event. He also played a pivotal role as the Novice Finals Judge at EVC 6.0, solidifying his reputation as a fair and insightful adjudicator.

Beyond judging, Timothy is a seasoned coach with an impressive track record, having led teams to two significant championship victories. His deep understanding of speech and debate, coupled with his passion for mentoring the next generation of debaters, makes him a highly sought-after figure in the field.

A dedicated professional, Timothy Adediran continues to inspire excellence and foster a culture of growth and learning within the speech and debate

community.

Professional Profile Links

Email Address: conqueststat@gmail.com

Phone Number: +1 5714897146

LinkedIn:

Portfolio:

INTRODUCTION

I’m Samuel, a passionate and experienced speech and debate adjudicator with over seven years of experience across various debating formats. Throughout my career, I have gained diverse exposure as both a competitor and a judge at national and international tournaments. My experience spans numerous debate formats such as British Parliamentary (BP), World Schools, Policy Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional Debate, and Big Questions, among others. Having engaged with debaters from across the globe, I have developed a nuanced understanding of the various styles and approaches that make for a compelling and successful debate.

My adjudicating philosophy is rooted in fairness, clarity, and an unwavering commitment to educational development. I strive to be a judge who not only assesses arguments effectively but also fosters a constructive and enriching environment for all participants. Whether you are a novice debater or an experienced competitor, I seek to provide the feedback that is both actionable and encouraging.

Key Judging Experience

My experience judging debates at some of the world’s leading tournaments has given me the opportunity to work with diverse teams, appreciate a range of debating styles, and engage with high-level competition. The following experiences are a testament to my exposure and depth of understanding across different debate formats:

Colgate Open 2022 – British Parliamentary Format

At the Colgate Open 2022, I had the privilege of judging two out-rounds and chairing one in-round in the British Parliamentary format. This experience allowed me to engage with 40+ participating teams and provided insight into the diverse strategies and approaches used within this highly dynamic format. I focused on evaluating how teams structured their arguments, framed their cases, and engaged with the opposition in this fast-paced, multi-team environment.

Prague Debate Spring 2022 – World Schools Format

As a judge at the Prague Debate Spring 2022, I assessed three out-rounds and chaired one in-round in the World Schools format, engaging with teams from five different countries. This international experience enhanced my understanding of the importance of global perspectives and cultural sensitivity in debating. I value the ability of teams to combine theoretical analysis with real-world application, and this tournament was a great example of how debaters from various backgrounds can bring unique insights into complex motions.

Pan-African Debating Tournament 2021 – British Parliamentary Format

At the Pan-African Debating Tournament, I judged two out-rounds and chaired one in-round. With 18 participating teams, this tournament exposed me to the rich diversity of debating styles across Africa. It was a rewarding experience, as I was able to witness a high level of passion for debate alongside sharp critical thinking. I particularly value when teams are able to present arguments with a strong sense of purpose and impact, drawing on relevant local and global examples to back up their claims.

Alfaaz Open 2022 – Duo Interpretation

The Alfaaz Open 2022 was a unique opportunity where I judged two out-rounds and chaired one in the Duo Interpretation category. With over 30+ teams competing, I gained a greater appreciation for the intersection of performance and speaking, emphasizing the importance of emotional engagement, clarity of expression, and cohesive teamwork in this format. This experience has shaped how I evaluate delivery-based events within debate tournaments.

LSE Open 2022 – British Parliamentary Format

At the LSE Open 2022, I judged three out-rounds and chaired two in-rounds, engaging with over 30 teams in the British Parliamentary format. The large scale of this tournament provided an opportunity to assess the strategic depth of debates and how teams manage the complexities of BP format, balancing preparation with adaptability.

BDC Nationals 2022 – British Parliamentary Format

In the BDC Nationals 2022, I judged two out-rounds and chaired two in-rounds, engaging with over 30 teams. This experience reinforced my belief in the importance of a well-organized case and how crucial it is to establish clear points of clash in the context of an extensive debate round.

Judging Philosophy

As a judge, I believe that the ultimate purpose of debate is to challenge ideas, foster critical thinking, and develop essential public speaking skills. With this in mind, I approach each round with a focus on both the substance and delivery of the debate. While I value technical expertise, I place a strong emphasis on clarity, argumentation, and engagement. Below are the core principles that shape my adjudicating style:

1. Fairness and Impartiality

First and foremost, my role as a judge is to ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation of all participants. I recognize the diverse backgrounds, skill sets, and debating traditions that come with the variety of debaters at tournaments, and I make it a point to approach each round without any preconceived notions. Every team is judged on the merit of their arguments and the quality of their engagement during the round. I take great care to create a level playing field where each speaker, regardless of experience or background, is evaluated based on their performance during that specific round.

2. Logical and Structured Argumentation

A well-structured argument is the backbone of any successful debate. I place a premium on clarity of thought and logical coherence. I expect debaters to present clear, well-reasoned arguments with appropriate evidence, and to ensure their arguments are accessible to both their teammates and opponents. Signposting key arguments, making explicit connections between the points presented, and ensuring a structured flow of ideas are critical to my evaluation process. Effective debaters not only make their case, but they do so in a way that is easy to follow and engages the entire room.

3. Impact Weighing and Comparative Analysis

While strong arguments are crucial, I value impact weighing and comparative analysis above all else. A debate is ultimately about why a particular argument or perspective matters. I reward teams that can effectively prioritize the significance of their arguments over the opposition's claims, and I am particularly interested in how debaters demonstrate the real-world relevance and importance of their case. This goes beyond simply presenting facts; it’s about making those facts meaningful and showing how they outweigh or refute the claims of the opposition.

4. Adaptability and Engagement

Debating is a dynamic, evolving activity. I value teams that can adapt to shifting narratives and actively engage with their opponents throughout the round. Whether you are in a British Parliamentary round, a World Schools debate, or a Lincoln-Douglas clash, it is essential to demonstrate flexibility and responsiveness. A great debater is not one who simply defends their prepared case but one who can pivot when necessary, effectively rebut the opposition, and engage with the round as it unfolds. My ideal debater is one who can engage meaningfully with the arguments presented, demonstrate strategic thinking, and adjust their approach as the round progresses.

5. Ethical Considerations and Professionalism

The integrity of the debate process is paramount. I expect respectful behavior and professionalism from all participants. Debaters must engage with ideas rather than individuals, focusing on the issues at hand rather than resorting to personal attacks or inflammatory language. A constructive and respectful atmosphere benefits everyone involved, and I actively discourage any attempts to undermine the ethical standards of the round. Civility and professionalism are not optional; they are integral to ensuring a positive and productive experience for all.

6. Educational Purpose and Constructive Feedback

While my role as a judge involves determining a winner, it is equally important that I serve as an educator. Debating is a tool for learning, and as such, I aim to provide feedback that helps debaters improve. I focus on highlighting strengths and providing constructive criticism that debaters can incorporate into future rounds. Whether it’s helping a team improve the clarity of their arguments or suggesting ways to refine their rebuttal strategies, my feedback is always intended to be practical and actionable.

My aim is to foster a learning environment that encourages debaters to refine their skills, challenge their thinking, and grow as individuals. I hope to leave all participants with valuable feedback that will aid in their development, regardless of the outcome. Above all, I believe that the true value of debate lies not in winning, but in the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue, share ideas, and expand one’s worldview. I look forward to the chance to adjudicate your debates and provide thoughtful, actionable feedback that will support your growth in the debate community.

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!

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

I am averse to spreading and just speaking fast in general. Quality over quantity! I look for debaters to layout a good solid case that fully connects. Additionally, good rebuttals and crystallization are vital to a good ballot. Try to make time to address your opponents arguments - spending all your time defending your points is not a good strategy. Time management is important!

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.

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.

Email Chain: genesisbritz1313@gmail.com

General

Please DO NOT call me by my first name. I prefer being addressed as “judge” or “Ms”. If you want to throw in my last name after any of those two, that’s fine as well.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglass and Congress for all four years of high school and was captain of my debate team. In addition, I have experience judging LD, PF, and CX.

Doc Sharing

Make sure you share your docs with me before we start the round. If you make any edits to your doc, feel free to send those as well. I prefer to use Speech Drop but I’ll agree to an email chain if that works best for all parties. PLEASE be prepared for ANYTHING. Technology likes to betray us at times so print out your cases, bring a charger, or multiple devices. Your SCHOOL EMAIL may NOT work when sending emails to people outside of your district. PLEASE make sure you save your cases to a personal email as well—anything to ensure a smooth round for yourself and everyone involved.

Speed

I prefer clarity over speed as I have yet to judge a debater who knows how to spread properly. However, if you are using speed to promote clash- great! If you are spreading during a rebuttal or any portion of the debate that I can not read- you will lose speaker points. If you are not comprehensible, I will most likely vote against you. I will tolerate spreading during AC/NC ,but if I am reading your doc with you instead of notetaking, it is more difficult to flow.

If your opponent clearly states they are not comfortable with spreading for any reason(ex: hearing impaired) and you do not adapt/adjust, you will get the lowest points possible.

Speaker Points

I base speaker points on two ideals: quality of presentation and quality of argument. Part of doing well in any speech competition is the ability to present professionally. Standing up(unless you’re physically unable),tone of voice, appropriate vocabulary, hand motions and clarity will all affect the amount of speaker points you receive. The quality of your argument depends on strategy and structure. Tip: assume that your judge knows absolutely nothing about the resolution, so be creative, explicit on your stance and thurley explain your argument. If I have to go back and read cards to get the gist of your argument, you're not doing too well. I also flow cross as it helps me determine how well you know your argument based on questions you ask and answers given.

LD Specific

LD is based on morality. Neither the aff or neg have to come up with a solution to the issue at hand. Framework is extremely pivotal, as a bad framework will cost you so make sure it's solid. I love a good philosophy-based debate but please explain it well. I may not be familiar with the scholarship of every philosophy out there. A traditional route is great. Make sure you have a good value(literally anything cool) and a criterion(something to weigh value on). Your criterion is the heart as it provides the function. A criterion should be a well-explained phrase, not just one word.

PROGRESSIVE

I understand that students want to add a theatric flare to their speech but if you are going to yell, slam your hand or things on the table, I am NOT the judge for you. You will not yell at me. Also, do not throw the resolution out the door if you don't have any warrants.

Theory and philosophy are great as long as its explained well.

PF Specific

NOT EVERYTHING LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

All in all,

Offensive remarks/language will NOT be tolerated and will be reported. I usually give verbal RDF but refer to your ballots either way.

I have over two years of experience as a debate judge, working with diverse age groups and esteemed organizations such as NHSDLC, TOC Asia, WSDA, Harvard debates, and USA Forensics. I have evaluated over 100 debates in both online and offline formats, covering Public Forum, Junior, Speech, and Lincoln-Douglas styles. My work with these organizations have broadened my exposure to international debate standards, enhancing my ability to assess arguments with a global perspective.

Throughout my judging career, I have remained committed to fostering clear communication and logical argumentation, providing constructive feedback to help debaters refine their skills. Additionally, as a leader and mentor, I inspire young debaters to embrace the art of respectful discourse and critical thinking.

When judging debates, I emphasize clarity, professionalism, and effective argumentation. While fast-talking can be impressive in certain cases, I prefer a moderate speaking pace that ensures clarity and accessibility for all audiences. Aggressiveness, when respectfully channeled, can add conviction to an argument, but personal attacks, insults, or unprofessional gestures are unacceptable and undermine credibility. I base my decision on the coherence, accuracy, and persuasiveness of arguments, along with the quality of evidence and rebuttals. I do not admit new arguments during summary speeches, as these speeches should consolidate and clarify the primary points of contention. The winner of a debate is the one who not only presents the strongest, most well-supported case but also engages in a respectful and impactful exchange of ideas.

Hello my name is Bakare Okikiola Daniel a debate lover, a speaker,a coach and a judge.

I bring a unique blend of impartiality, empathy, and dedication to ensuring each debater’s voice is heard and respected. I understand that debating is not just about winning or losing; it’s about presenting ideas thoughtfully, analyzing arguments critically, and engaging with opposing viewpoints in a constructive manner. I care deeply about every debater’s perspective, recognizing that each speaker offers valuable insights, regardless of whether I agree with their position.

I approach every round with a mindset of active listening and fair evaluation. Rather than simply scoring points, I strive to understand the underlying logic and evidence presented. When judging, I make sure to give equal weight to both sides of the debate, acknowledging the strengths of each argument and critiquing weaknesses in a way that’s constructive, not dismissive. It’s important to me that debaters feel their points are taken seriously, and that their efforts to communicate, persuade, and respond to challenges are respected.

I also believe in providing feedback that helps debaters grow. I don’t just point out where arguments could be stronger or more developed, but I also highlight moments where debaters show creativity, adaptability, and skillful argumentation. My goal is not only to be a neutral arbiter, but also a mentor in fostering a space where debaters can learn from each other and refine their craft.

Ultimately, my commitment is to uphold the integrity of the debate, ensuring that the decision I make is grounded in a fair, thoughtful, and respectful analysis of each side’s position. Every debater deserves to feel that their voice has been valued, and I take that responsibility seriously.

Experience :

1. 3 rounds of CNDF in Tri-City Fall Cup 2024 23/11/24

2. 2 round of Extemp at Citron December Debate Invitational 2024 4/12/2024

3. 2 rounds of LD at Citron January Debate Invitational 8/1/2025

4. 3 rounds of LD at Salado Online UIL New Year Classic 18/1/2025

5. 1 round of LD and 1 round of Extemp at Citron February Debate Invitational 5/2/2025

6. 1 round of speech and one round of Radio at Citron February Speech Invitational 12/2/2025

7. 2 rounds of Open PF at Germantown Friends Invitational 1/3/2025

8. 1 round of Extemp and 1 round of Informative speaking at Rainbow Classic ASYNC NIETOC 5/3/2025

Bakare Daniel.

Judge Paradigm for Debate and Speech

Name: Evans Kellyu

Judging Experience: 5 years judging both speech and debate

---

General Philosophy

I value clarity, organization, and engagement. I approach every round with an open mind, free from bias toward specific styles or schools of thought. My ultimate goal is to reward students who communicate effectively, build persuasive arguments, and adapt their presentation to the audience (in this case, me as the judge).

---

Preferences for Debate

Clarity and Speed

- Speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow your arguments.

- I can handle moderate spreading (speed reading), but ensure that your delivery is intelligible. If I can’t understand it, I won’t flow it.

Argumentation

- Arguments should be well-structured and supported with evidence.

- Weigh impacts effectively; explain why your arguments matter more than your opponent’s.

- Don’t just tell me what to think—show me why.

• Be strategic in rebuttals and crystallization, focusing on key points rather than covering everything superficially.
• Framework and Theory**

- I appreciate a clear framework for the round; if you're presenting one, justify why it should guide my decision.

- For theory and procedural arguments, I will evaluate them if they’re well-warranted, but I prefer debates centered on substantive issues unless there’s a clear abuse.

Cross-Examination/POIs

- Use cross-examination or points of information (POIs) strategically to clarify arguments, highlight flaws, or advance your position.

- Be polite but assertive; professionalism matters.

Delivery

- Passion and confidence are important, but avoid being overly aggressive or disrespectful.

- Engage with your opponent’s arguments directly; I value clash and depth.

---

Preferences for Speech

Content

- Original, thought-provoking content will always stand out.

- Structure matters: Have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Transitions should be smooth.

- Support your points with strong evidence, anecdotes, or rhetorical devices as appropriate.

Delivery

- Speak with purpose. Use tone, pitch, and volume effectively to emphasize key points.

- Eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures should enhance your speech, not distract from it.

Timing

- Respect time limits; I will stop evaluating arguments or points made after time expires.

Engagement

- Connect with the audience (and me). Whether humorous, persuasive, or dramatic, your delivery should feel authentic and compelling.

---

Final Thoughts

I prioritize respect and professionalism above all. Whether in debate or speech, your ability to present a coherent, engaging, and impactful performance is what will set you apart. Adapt your style to match these preferences, and remember: the best competitors not only make strong arguments but also make the round enjoyable to judge.

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

Judging PF, LD, and Congress since 2018. Coaching since 2024.

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, 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, 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.

Hi, there.

I'm Qareebat.

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

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

Pronouns: She/her

Email: dedoyinibrahim@gmail.com

Personal conflicts: I do not have any.

Here are a few things to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey y'all! My name is Akshita, and I did extemp (also dabbled in congress) for four years at Coppell. I am now a freshman at Smith College, studying Government & Quantitative Economics.

Extemp

This is the event that I have the most experience with and am the most qualified to judge.

I keep up with the news as much as I can, so if you are lying, it reflects poorly on you. I would much rather have a speech that prioritizes integrity over perfection! (Also, don't lie about your sources. I am not going to audit you, but I expect honesty - forgetting a source is not as bad as being caught for lying about one.)

I prefer an analysis heavy speech - that is not to say that your delivery will not be considered, but if your analysis is clearly the best in the round, I will excuse a few delivery flubs here and there.

Have clear substructure. If I am missing a warrant, I cannot buy the argument. I do my best to not make connections for you, so think through your A and B to make sure that you have the most amount of information to effectively make your point. This is one of the first things I look for when deciding ranks.

Though layered analysis is growing more popular, I prefer unified analysis. You could still pull it off, but you need to do a much better job on every other aspect for me to buy your speech at face value.

I do not care about you going overtime! Fitting all that information in 7 minutes is difficult, and as long as you are under 7:30, I will not downrank you. That said, however, use your time wisely. I hear (and have given) many top heavy speeches. If a point is a couple seconds longer than another, that is fine, but if your first point is pushing 2 minutes, and your third point barely scrapes 45 seconds, you have mismanaged your time.

I like a balance of quality sources. While you can (and should) cite newspapers and dailys, I find that think tanks and journal articles can be an incredibly subtle, yet powerful addition to your speech. Unpopular opinion, but I also enjoy authors.

I frown upon notecards if you are in varsity - memorization is part of the challenge, and I would rather have someone who stumbles a couple of times than someone who relies heavily on a notecard.

Don't rush! I spent a lot of my career doing this, and it is not fun to listen to. Take your time, go slow, and ensure that every point is being heard.

Make good eye contact. I don’t look up often from my computer because I am taking notes and giving feedback, but if I’m looking up and you are not looking at me, it gives off the impression that you were never looking at me!

I love humor! The more of it you incorporate, the more brownie points you get. Make clever jokes and do your best to not can them; however, please use it appropriately and evaluate whether the topic needs the joke or not.

Most importantly, have fun and be yourself! This may seem like generic advice, but you can clearly differentiate between an extemper who is having fun and one who is not, and even if the speech quality is the same, the vibes are important too. Debate is truly a game, so play it! It will help you deviate from the "robotic" extemper style, and set yourself apart!

Other Speech Events

OO/INFO: For OO, have a clear and concise argument. I like to hear academic sources, and humor mixed in. Have engaging slides for INFO. I think what really differentiates the top of the room and the bottom of the room for both of these events is how creative and moving your storytelling is.

Acting Events: I love watching when you develop those characters fully. Use the space around you well, and bring the story to life.

Binder Events: Incorporate the binder as a part of your piece. Cut intersting, thought provoking stories!

Congress

I know this event too. I like good clash and people who make unique arguments. I also love good structure and line by lines when it comes to refutations. Debaters who make it easy for me to follow the debate will be at the top of my ballot.

I appreciate those who choose to P.O., especially when they run a quick and efficient chamber. I try my best to ensure that a good P.O. will always advance, until and unless the competition is so intense and the breaks are very difficult. Additionally, if you have made a mistake, but the room does not call you out on it, I will take note. Your rank will drop if you continue to make mistakes.

Be respectful during CX. I don't want to hear you talking over each other. I do like sass, but keep it to a minimum, and don't insult anybody.

The best debaters, in my opinion, are those who have good strategy when they give their speech. If you continually give the first aff/neg, you come off as someone that lacks the ability to refute arguments. If you are always the crystallization speech, the strength of your own arguments aren't necessarily able to shine. Be strategic with your round vision and how you want the debate to pan out.

Have fun! Again, Congress is such an accessible and interesting event, so take time to write witty AGD's and use them!

Debate

Add me to the email chain (make the subject name the tournament name, year, and round; ex: Harvard, 2024, R3 John v. Smith) - akshitakrishnan23@gmail.com.

I am a lay judge. I try to pay attention to what you are saying, so I won't be looking at doc very often - please do NOT spread.

I am going to need handholding. Explain each argument clearly and weigh well.

I try my best to vote off of anything, but I need to understand it well enough to do so.

Tech > truth. I will do my best to not intervene.

Have fun :)

I am an coach and judge with over 10 years of experience and have judged most debate and speech events.

I strongly dislike spreading, as I don't believe that you win by throwing tons of points and hope they stick. Instead I want the debaters to layout a good solid case that fully connects. I look for direct clash and the logic that shows why your side won the clash.

Good rebuttals and crystalization is vital to a good ballot.

I have judged LD and PF and coached a Worlds Team at Nationals.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Brief roadmaps are welcome and appreciated. Also, please signpost!

2. I generally believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof. If AFF can’t make the case why their proposition is better than the status quo, NEG is almost certain to get my ballot.

3. If you do not address your opponents’ arguments, I am assuming you do not intend to refute them. Time management is important when strengthening your arguments and still leaving room to refute your opponents’. Take a few seconds to collapse so my flow is clean at the end of the round.

Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:

1. DO NOT SPREAD. If you are speaking and moving too quickly that I can’t keep up, we have a problem that could end with me missing something crucial to your case. I will stop taking notes if I cannot understand you.

2. If your opponent calls for a card, you should have it relatively readily available. I don’t expect it to be at your side immediately, but when we get past 45 seconds, I’m either losing my patience or start to suspect you don’t have it.

3. PF'ers - Cross and Grand Cross should not be seen as opportunities to see who can speak the loudest or be the most assertive.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

In general, my expectation for WSD rounds is that you are taking your opponents at their highest ground. Motions should be reasonably interpreted, without squirrely definitions.

Compare worlds for me--to win the comparative, you need to prove to me that your world is substantively better than your opponents', and explain why.

Content: What does your case look like? Are your arguments fully fleshed-out? I expect you to state your claim, establish plenty of warrants behind that claim, and link concrete impacts. I reward solid analysis with high scores. I prefer examples to evidence, so don't use evidence cards.

Style: This one's pretty straightforward. I mark down speech readers, and boost solid rhetoric. I want to know that you, as a speaker, are fully engaged with your opponents and judge(s).

Strategy: This is where I evaluate your approach to the motion, as well as how you approach your opponents' case and arguments. You could break down the flow, but not all arguments are created equally and you should not have to address every subtantive. I recognize solid strategy scores from debaters who are able to zero in on the arguments that are likely to matter to me at the end of the round. I also expect POI's to have a purpose and be used to show me that you see a flaw in your opponents arguments. If you're asking a POI, it should be evident at some point in the next speech why that POI was asked.

CONGRESS

I am looking for students that can effectively argue either side of the topic with a passion. I want a strong intro and a great closing and 2 good supported arguments at the end. Congress is an event when you are trying to stand above the pack so make yourself memorable. I sometimes can value one great speech to many so-so speeches. Questions are helpful to show me you understand the arguments.

Presiding Officers - I should feel like I'm very much in YOUR chamber, not mine. PO's who truly control the room are the ones who stand out. I weigh your efficiency, procedural knowledge, and style.

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 tech. 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.

8. I don't flow CX; I will sometimes write notes, but if you want me to consider something in my decision bring it up in your speeches.

9. I WILL stop writing, and probably listening, when your time runs out.

Good luck, and have fun.

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

He/Him pronouns

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

FLOW

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

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

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

EXTENSIONS

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

SPEECH CONDUCT

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

WHAT APPEALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have also judge many speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a great time anyways.

pronouns He/him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards.

Jesutofunmi Joshua OGUNNIRAN

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka and I hold a bachelor of Agricultural Science. I have over two years experience with judging major tournaments(speeches and debate all debate formats including but not limited to WSD, BP, AP, LD, PF, Congressional) in circuits around the world (majorly African Circuits, Asian Circuit and American Circuits).

What I look for when judging:

Interp Events:How well did you suspend my belief and pull me into your message/story? Can I distinguish between your characters? Is your piece fluid and coherent in storytelling from start to finish? Does blocking compliment the story being told? These are questions I typically use to separate the best from the best.

Platform Events: These events will be judged on the presentation of ideas, its relevance/significance, and solid delivery, in that order. I really love judging these events because I feel like I'm learning something with each piece, and these three key elements really help accomplish your message. Make sure your humor is tasteful and relevant.

Limited Prep Events: Analysis/Connection to topic is number one. Do you have a thesis and clear signposting, are your arguments organized in a way that they build on each other? Does your introduction tie back to your conclusion nicely? Do you have quality sources, and do they build upon your arguments (quality > quantity)? Next comes delivery. Is your speech delivered in a way that compliments your argument? Is enough time given to each individual argument/point? Inflections, enunciation, diction, rhetorical impacts, confident delivery, hand gestures- these elements add to your speech and can set students apart.

PF/LD: I will be flowing your arguments most of the time just out of habit. Make sure your arguments are well developed with substantial warranting, as I'll be primarily judging you off how well you build arguments. Developing your arguments and challenging your opponents with counterarguments are equally important. I appreciate when debates consider larger implications and are not limited to a specific scope. I'm a former speech competitor, so good articulation and delivery is important to me. Not a huge fan of spreading, if you're going a million miles a minute, I probably won't be able to follow you too well- especially without clear diction. Also, I understand debate gets heated in the moment, but please exhibit decorum because it really is an essential part of keeping a debate productive.

Congress: The biggest thing I look for in Congress is how well you add to a debate. Be actively involved in building arguments in speeches and questioning. I don't enjoy rehash and get bored after the same arguments have been read several times. Delivery and presentation are considered and can separate tied debaters. Follow the rules of the chamber and exhibit decorum in round, it'll be noticed. POs will be ranked on efficiency and should exhibit formality throughout the session.

WSD/BP/AP:Arguments>Evidence. Don't get caught up in the evidence of the debate because it will take away crucial time that can be used to build arguments and might cost you the round. Team coherence is important to me, I want to see some form of unity in what you're arguing and how you're arguing it. Delivery skills are weighted highly and can separate a tough debate.

Good luck and have fun! I'm excited to see what you've prepared :)

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

I am Juliana Omane

As a seasoned orator, debate coach, and adjudicator, I bring a wealth of experience in various debating formats, including British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debate Championship, Canadian National Debate Format, Public Forum, and Parliamentary debate.

When evaluating debates, I emphasize the importance of respectful discourse, where speakers engage with arguments rather than resorting to personal attacks. I also prioritize equity and inclusivity, expecting participants to uphold these values.

To facilitate effective judging, I appreciate debaters who share their documents in advance, particularly for Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debates. A moderate speaking pace is also valued, as it enables me to fully absorb and assess the arguments presented.

In my evaluation, the quality of arguments and logical reasoning takes precedence over stylistic flourishes. I commend debaters who demonstrate a deep understanding of motion types, burden of proof, and the effective deployment of fiats and counter-plans. I do not have any any conflicts.

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

Starting in 2025 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when I'm not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter-propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter-proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is essential or aligns with the debate's spirit. My evaluation of a good counter-proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Please come to round prepared, do not hold up the round because you forgot you needed to charge your laptop, get flow paper, etc.

For IE Competitors:

I did IX and DX for all four years of high school. I will be taking notes while you speak but I am actively listening. I pay attention to mannerisms and level of professionalism and confidence you carry through your speech. I will provide thorough feedback and I am more than happy to chat with you about your speech!

For LD/PF Competitors: add me on the chain, my email is sanchezisabella139@gmail.com.

Create an email chain EVERY round, it saves time from calling for evidence, thanks.

PF Paradigm:

• Tech > Truth
• I auto drop for racism/sexism/homophobia or anything that is problematic that can make the debate space unsafe for others.
• Spreading is fine.
• If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.
• Not everything leads to extinction...
• Progressive arguments do not belong in PF, don't run it in front of me.

LD Paradigm:

• If you are running K's make link clear in every speech and explain well.
• Tech > Truth
• Complicated and convoluted arguments that are poorly conveyed are worse than simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly.
• I enjoy framework debate.
• Please remain professional and composed--especially during CX. I do not appreciate rude comments between competitors during CX.

As a general blanket statement, I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. If your spreading is muddled and incomprehensible I will stop flowing until I can understand you again.

If you have any questions or advice on your round, simply ask me after the round or email me at: ias982@my.utexas.edu

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

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'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin.debate@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.