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.

Dear Debating Community,

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

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

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

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

I typically judge speech events!

I love speech! I've been participating for 4 years now, and do a variety of events, including OO, INF, DUO/DUET, POI, and a group event that only shows up in some circuits. I have passed the NSDA judge test, and am an Academic All American. When judging, I try to pay special attention to the quality of the script, characterization (if present), and general importance! :)

I don't have a lot of experience judging formally an event but I do have a bit of experience competing in both Oral Interp. and Original Oratory as well as practice judging my classmates.

For debate I like to and flow and I appreciate clarity of thoughts, and and speech when possible. Though I am on top of performance techniques, I prioritize the contents of the speech and how accurately they are conveyed over your style. I also believe arguments should be compelling for the speaker themselves, and I will be evaluating if your points would convince me to change my stance. I would prefer respectful discourse, acknowledging opponents over fighting to establish your claims.

For speech, I look for preparation and embodiment; can your performance take me to where you are describing? Does your interpretation follow the text or not? Where are points of contrast and dynamic, and is that a straight path or a journey? What identifies you to the piece? Did you chose it to share a part of your story with others, or are you performing an excerpt to spread awareness? I ask that each student honors the others performances while in the audience.

I am an independent judge with over 5 years of forensics experience in competing and coaching.

EXPERIENCE:

college:

San Joaquin Delta (EXT/IMP, IPDA. DI, Prose, POI, ADS, CA) - NFA qual for all events 2016-2018, PRP IMP Bronze, NCFA Imp/Ext champ 2017-2018

CSU Chico (EXT/IMP, DI, Prose, POI, ADS, Poetry) - AFA qual for all events 2018-2020, NFA OCT ADS

I have coached on the high school level for all NSDA style individual events, parliamentary debate, public forum, and Lincoln Douglas. Having a more limited competitive debate experience (IPDA), I tend to judge primarily on the flow. That being said, I do not do the work for you when an argument/card is dropped by your opponent; you must address it. I can also often be a stickler for framework being upheld in the round. I was on a very competitive collegiate Parli & LD team so although I have not competed in those much myself, I am very familiar with all jargon and can follow spreading fairly well. However, if you spread I would like you to share your cards with me & your opponent. I’m fascinated with kritiks when done creatively and made topical. That being said, I also love to see a topicality argument properly run as many experimental cases tend to stretch the resolution a bit.

[I need to see a fully formed shell with proper standards for me to vote on T. Stating something is not topical is great and I can often acknowledge that on my own, so I need a full T shell structured to flow that into the debate.]

Most of my competitive experience is in individual events, so I focus a lot of my judgement on presentation as well. Please ask me as many questions as you have and I hope I can impart some wisdom from my experience or at least provide a perspective from my time in NFA & AFA-NIET style competition.

Experience:

I competed in and qualified all 11 AFA-NIET style events throughout college. I believe introductions are incredibly vital to the magnitude of your interp’s impact in the round, so I will gladly give notes on making that more significant. Besides that, I look for character distinction and an ability to convey a range of emotions (even in HI, comedic timing requires levels). For public address, I mainly focus on professional delivery, source recency/validity, and opportunities for writing changes. Limited prep can often be very formulaic, so I tend to have a similar judging philosophy to PA speeches delivery-wise. However, I love to see creativity in these rounds. I have competed in countless rounds of Impromptu and Extemp, so seeing someone stray from the typical format successfully is always very impressive.

Above all else, please be yourself and have fun! I hope to make the round feel like a safe space and am always available for questions about how you can improve as a forensicator!

Hi! My name is Aleena Joseph and I am a sophomore at Texas A&M University. In high school, I was an avid speech and debate competitor, particularly in Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Public Forum, Dramatic Interpretation, and Humorous Interpretation. I was strongest in Original Oratory and Informative Speaking as a 2-time state qualifier for both, and a national tournament qualifier and attendee for Oratory. I competed heavily in Public Forum in my sophomore year and judged novice rounds in my senior year. My experience levels would match a flay judge, so I highly recommend articulating your arguments thoroughly. The easier it is for me to understand your arguments, the better your speaker points will likely be. I also critique your speaking heavily, so try your best to speak clearly with articulation and tone.

Basic Things I Appreciate In a Round (Debate)

- Good articulation and overall outstanding speaking

- Simple Termed Arguments

- Overall respect for each other. I do NOT tolerate mansplaining or any other disrespect in the round.

- WEIGHING IS SO IMPORTANT. I need to be convinced that your argument is the best for society as a whole.

- Have fun! I love when I see competitors having fun and enjoying their rounds.

- I likely will not disclose, but you can ask.

How I Judge Speech --

• Strong arguments with creative examples to follow
• Expressions and inflection get you major points with me!

Good luck! I’m super excited to judge your round!

If you have questions after the round, feel free to email me at aleenajoseph597@tamu.edu! Thanks!

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).

Name: BELOVED MABHENA

Judging Philosophy:

1. General Approach:
- I approach debates with an open mind and encourage teams to be creative in their arguments. I value robust evidence and clear logical structures but am also receptive to narrative and impact-oriented arguments.

2. Framework:
- I believe in the importance of a solid framework for understanding the debate. Teams should clearly establish their framework and how their arguments fit within it. I prefer debates that are grounded in real-world implications.

3. Contention vs. Case Debate:
- I appreciate a well-structured case with clear contentions. I expect teams to engage with each other's case directly and not avoid addressing key arguments raised.

Speed and Clarity:

1. Speed:
- I am comfortable with a faster pace, but clarity is crucial. If I can’t understand the argument, I won’t flow it, so please ensure your cards and arguments are presented clearly.

2. Tech and Clarity:
- While I appreciate the tech-heavy debate styles, please ensure that arguments are accessible. Don’t sacrifice clarity due to speed.

Off-Case Arguments:

1. Counterplans and Kritik:
- I welcome counterplans and kritik arguments. Make sure you provide a clear link to the resolution and engage with the flow of the case. Explain your arguments thoroughly.

2. Framework for Kritik:
- If your kritik hinges on a specific philosophical standpoint, make sure it is well articulated. I am open to various perspectives as long as they are relevant to the debate.

Impact Analysis:

1. Importance of Impact:
- I place great emphasis on impact analysis. The ability to explain why your arguments matter and their real-world implications can be more important than the argument itself.

2. Specificity:
- I prefer specific impacts over generic ones. Well-articulated impacts can make a substantial difference in my decision.

Interpersonal Dynamics:

1. Respect and Engagement:
- I value respectful discourse. Personal attacks or belittling arguments or opponents will negatively affect my perception of the debate.

2. Cross-Examination:
- Use cross-examination effectively! It is an opportunity to clarify your position and challenge your opponent’s arguments. Engage with your opponent thoughtfully.

Decision-Making:

1. Flowing and Notes:
- My ballot will rely on what you present in round. I will be flowing the debate carefully. The arguments that are articulated convincingly and supported with evidence will take precedence.

2. Voting Criteria:
- My decision will take into account the clarity of arguments, engagement with opponents, and overall persuasive impact. I look for evidence-based arguments and coherent analysis.

General Notes:

1. Preparation and Adaptability:
- Be prepared to adapt to different types of debates and unexpected arguments. Flexibility in your approach can enhance the quality of the debate.

2. Feedback:
- I am happy to provide feedback and will do so via the ballot. If you wish to discuss your performance further, feel free to approach me after the round.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate -

In judging Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate, my approach revolves around a few core principles that align with the fundamental objectives and structure of LD Debate. Here’s a detailed paradigm for how I evaluate debates in this format:

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is designed to engage participants in a philosophical and ethical discourse, focusing on values and principles rather than policy specifics. The objective is to assess the validity of competing value frameworks and the application of these values to the resolution.

1. **Central Role of Values**: The core of LD Debate lies in the clash of values. Each debater must present a value proposition, which is a fundamental belief or principle that they argue should guide decision-making. The Value Criterion (VC) is the metric by which the value is practically applied to the resolution. It’s crucial that the Value Criterion is clearly defined and logically connected to the Value, offering a clear standard for evaluating the round.

2. **Evaluative Framework**: I prioritize the clarity and relevance of the Value Criterion. It must be directly tied to the Value and effectively demonstrate how the arguments and evidence presented align with or support the Value. A strong Value Criterion will help in weighing the impacts of arguments in relation to the core philosophical issues.

### Evaluative Criteria

1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Arguments should be clear and logically structured. The debaters’ value and value criterion should be well-defined and consistently applied throughout the round.

2. **Relevance**: Arguments should address the resolution and engage with the philosophical implications rather than focusing on policy details or technicalities.

3. **Impact and Application**: Evaluate how well each debater applies their Value Criterion to the resolution. The round should focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the topic rather than practical policy solutions.

### Policy Debate Tactics

I will not tolerate tactics typical of policy debate, such as "spreading" (rapid-fire delivery of arguments) or excessive technical jargon that obfuscates the debate’s core philosophical focus. LD Debate is intended to be accessible and focused on substantive value-based discourse. Arguments should be presented in a clear and accessible manner, allowing for a meaningful evaluation of values and criteria.

In summary, in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I emphasize the importance of a clear Value Criterion connected to a well-defined Value, with a focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the resolution. Policy debate tactics that detract from this focus, such as spreading, will not be considered effective in this format.

Congressional Debate -

Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.

Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.

I think requiring paradigms is a bit silly; mostly because you ought to be focused on debating, rather than appeasing my preferences; so do that, focus on the purpose of debate, which is and always has been an intellectual discussion; do not make it into a performance, we have speech categories for that.

That being said, I will now give my experience, and preferences, for the sake of communication.

I have been a coach for over 25 years, and competed in all levels of speech and debate. Even with all of my experience, I have found that my core philosophy can be reduced to “debate well!”

But for more specific judging information…

• I love analysis over evidence.

• If you are using evidence, use it wisely; quality over quantity.

• With your evidence, make sure that you are qualifying the evidence with explanations of experts; simply saying something does not make it true.

• Defend the relevance of the evidence that you do present and make sure that it is not manipulated or misrepresented.

• Use your cross examination time well, I tend to think more “real debate” happens there and I do flow it.

• Weighing is critical as your philosophy, ideology, evidence and arguments should make connections.

• Clash is imperative.

PET PEEVES!

• Listen to the questions you ask during cross. DO NOT ask for the first question. In doing so, you have already used up your first question! Also it wastes time.

• Do not ask me to be on your email chain. Your arguments should speak for themselves without me needing to read them.

• There is no need for an “off time road map” if you know how to signpost; don’t tell me you are going to debate … just debate.

• Please do not shake my hand after round; it infringes on my ballot and does not make up for performance in the round.

It is your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you; not my job as a judge to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete or poorly organized.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

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 there!

My name is Onyido Prosper, and my judging career which spans for over eight years and 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,

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.

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..............

I use any pronouns. I'm in my third year of university. Forgive me if I'm not caught up on the latest news. It's me and my matcha latte vs the entire world (pchem). Yippee! I used to compete in the Oregon circuit in high school. I learned everything debate-wise (except policy, but I understand the format). In hindsight, I'm always giving out half-baked thoughts, and I might understand everything, but then I don't communicate all of it for a variety of reasons. I’m just a world-class yapper and some. C'est la vie, bottom-up processing is always going to screw me over somehow.

Link to Google form for questions and feedback (for you and me). (https://forms.gle/ZKoVB94q46LToGn56)

Speech

Trigger warnings and content warnings are always appreciated. If you don't know the difference, please ask or look at this. BTW, maybe you should disclose this before the round starts so that there's informed consent.

Debate Preferences (in no particular order of importance)

Please ask me if you have specific questions or would like clarifications.

1. Please signpost and give taglines. I love a good line-by-line. I like referencing contention/disad/adv/etc number for signposting. It's easier to find than a word. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I will not be able to flow your argument the way you want it. Mild speed is fine. I will tell you if I can not understand you by saying "clear." Your opponents should also receive the same courtesy. I'm not a huge fan of off-time road maps because it's something you should not need if you're signposting. (Translation: I will be mildly annoyed. Want to annoy me more? Thank your opponents and me in your speech. Hot take: Unless you're in the finals of an ultra-huge tournament (nats, TOC, etc), maybe you don't need to thank everyone.) Try me :D
2. I am a lazy flow judge. I will try not to evaluate you based on my knowledge and bias. I'm not going to be "tabula rasa" because I know that I will have biases, beliefs, etc. that will affect my decision-making. (I'm human. I’m super lazy because I'm probably exhausted.) I'll only work with what you give me. Our interpretations of the reality we share are 100% different, so make sure you present your interpretation for me to flow/consider. So I will try to judge purely by the flow unless I cannot condone something. For example, if your opponent says, "The sky is green," my flow will say that until corrected with impacts. Also, just because I see your vision doesn't mean I will vote on it. If it's not explicitly on my flow in that particular phrasing, I'm not voting on it.
3. For formats with cx, I don't flow that. If you find something significant in cx, please bring it up in a speech and tell me where to put it in my flow. The same goes for POIs in parli.
4. Make sure I can buy your argument. Explain the impacts of your arguments to me using links. I LOVE good link chains.
5. Theory-wise, if you think it's appropriate, fire away. Honestly, I'm more likely to vote for on-case than off-case if it's justified and you're good about it. If you find a good reason to do off-case, go for it as long as you think I'll buy it.
6. I love formal structure through a policy lens (taglines, planks of a plan, CPs, DAs, press, etc) and value (real-world impacts/natural policy consequences of valuing x over y). For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety," tell me what natural policy consequences will follow and the impacts of those consequences (e.g. deregulation of the environment, no more TSA, idk it's your round). I also appreciate a clear framework (value+weighing mechanism), regardless of the resolution. If it's a policy resolution, please have a plan on aff or at least a specific approach to affirm.
7. PLEASE TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. Not all points are made equal, so you should tell me why the points you won matter more than the points your opponent won (realistically, you will not win every point unless you're a god). I love impact calculus.
8. In terms of judging, I generally default to tallying up contentions using the framework provided in the round. If you don't give me any framework/win conditions, I'll go point by point on the flow. If you highlight the points of clash and why you're still standing, I'll weigh on those instead. If the round was a mess, I will either default to NEG on presumption or flip a coin. I have free will unless told otherwise, so do with that what you will. If you don't want me to vote a certain way or consider something, tell me. I also tend to entangle whether or not the resolution was even upheld in my consideration whenever I do presumption. My thought process: Was the resolution not upheld? Then AFF didn't uphold their burden. Make my life easier by being explicit. I am just that stupid.
9. As a judge, I will try to protect the flow, regardless of the format. However, I'm human. If I see any new points that I cannot trace back to with little to no work, I will not vote on them. So make sure you're either super consistent with your wording or super explicit. NPDL: call the POO just in case I didn't catch it. For example, if the AFF does not explicitly have a plan in the 1AC in parli the AFF will not have a plan on my flow.
10. If you're neg on a policy resolution, I love some good counterplans, disads, and/or a justified PIC. ✨Creativity✨
11. Regarding evidence and cards for prepped formats, I'll only take those into account if you properly link them to your case and framework with analysis and impacts. Otherwise, those numbers and experts are just randoms on my flow. Like sparkles ✨ You can ignore everything after the sparkle if you're not in parli. For Oregon parli, I did parli without internet prep (even when I had internet prep); so I memorized current events and learned how to extrapolate reasonably: a lost art. Now that you know my parli background, I don't really care what evidence you have because your case should be logically sound. The Oregon Public (Parliamentary) Debate creators intended for kids to write logically sound cases from the kids' knowledge, not the knowledge of experts. In contrast to those creators, I think using a policy structure in parli is super sweet. Makes my flow neat. I treat evidence from the internet like a cherry on top when linked and impacted properly. For California/NPDL, balance my preferences for prepped formats with Oregon parli (evidence not required).
12. Feel free to give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!
13. Please be respectful to everyone in your round! I don't like interventionism, but I will vote you down if you display any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. In the same vein, but also slightly unrelated, would you look at your mom that way? If the answer is "no," maybe you should reconsider how you're viewing your judge and your fellow competitors. Consider respectful gazes and make sure Freud is wrong. Our actions have impacts. This goes for competitors and judges.
14. Speaker points are arbitrary and I should not be the judge of your speaking style. If nothing bad happens, 30 speaks. If I feel like I should not reward you for certain behaviors (e.g. lack of signposting, decorum, etc), your speaks will be docked appropriately. For every single time I struggled to find you on the flow, .5 will be docked. (I NEED signposting.) Might stop docking after the 25 mark. MIGHT.

TL;DR: If you scratch my back (e.g. hold my hand as you explain your arguments, use formal structure, have a hefty link chain, and make my time flowing you easy), I'll give you 30 speaks. Or you could say you/everyone deserves 30 speaks in your speech/run 30 speaks theory on me. I'd be down to follow through on that. I’m happiest when I’m a lazy judge. So please, please, please make my life easier. No thoughts, just vibes. If you actually grab for my hand, I'll give you the lowest speaks possible and find your coach. BTW, I hate shaking hands with children. Play your cards right, make sure my hands are tied (metaphorically), and have fun!! :D

Silly Shenanigans (totally skippable)

• "Omg, why is there a lot on your paradigm?" Because I want you to know who I am so you can either strike me, have me as a judge, and/or cater to me! Everything up there probably has a horror story origin. Some of it wasn't horror-story-level. This paradigm is so long that I constantly miss things.
• Feel free to complain about me to your coach/team on the way home. Your complaints should've been channeled into the round. Anything that I used to evaluate the round in my RFD is a reflection of the most prevalent points for both sides. I do give feedback, but I’ve been dialing back on it because I can’t find the line between feedback and lowkey coaching. I cannot be that life-changing ballot (bad actor). I want to be helpful, but I don’t know what’s too much.
• I am a firm believer that a good debate has a clean flow. I know how to achieve it, do you? :D
• Debate is a game where you can lose by an inch and functionally lose by a mile.
• Istg, if I have to trace all of the dropped args one more time, I’m going to find a barrel and be a menace. There’s a thin line between y’all’s analysis and me doing the work for you. I’d rather not be *that* judge. Also, Diogenes is wrong. Ignorance is so blissful.
• NPDL: If there's an info-slide, I did not read it because my interpretation of the res/info slide is 100% different from yours. Repeat what you need/summarize it for me.
• I used to give everyone 30 speaks until I realized I was rewarding people I didn't want to reward because they did some insensitive things/didn't signpost. Now, I give them out based on a mood basis in the range of 26-28 when I don't see proper signposting. So maybe if y'all could...yk, be decent (or 30 speaks theory)...I could give y'all 30 speaks :)
• Grammarly hates my paradigm, lol
• Is literacy still a thing, or do I have to be direct?

Speak clearly and loudly, and follow time limits.

Hi! I'm Ronan Spencer, I'm a student at Utah State studying Political Science & Finance. I have debated for 7 years of my life and am currently debating collegiate. I believe in the power of public speaking and think that debate is one of the most powerful skills you will ever develop, here's my paradigm...

Congress:

Please have a roadmap and consider having an engaging intro, as well as speakers triangle if you find fit.

Public speaking in this event is important, use hand gestures and eye contact.

Referencing other opponents is important, if you attack somebody's speech and use evidence to back yourself up then you are very impressive.

Papers and computers are fine, I probably won't give your more preference if you have your speech on a legal pad, however it is impressive if you were able to create a speech extemporaneously (BUT HAVE EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!)

PO/chair should be able to keep time and be able to run the round smoothly without hiccups, if you make a mistake or mess something up dont worry because being a PO can be hard. Having a PO sheet on the board or online is always appreciated.

LD:

I appreciate clash and thought-through cases.

I enjoy when people attack others on their cards and pick apart their case based on the validity or relevance of their evidence, beware of cards because they might not always be completely accurate!

I think that even in a debate based event its important to consider speaking ability as well, I like people who use hand gestures or make an effort to not stare at their laptop during their whole case.

During rebuttals it is your time to shine, make sure you make it understandable and structured, nothing is more important than a roadmap.

If you throw multiple sub points and bombard the other speaker with lots of points that don't make a lot of since, I won't consider it completely bad if the opponent decides to drop them (within reason). I know that some people like to throw half baked points at the opponent, quality over quantity unless its interesting subpoints!

Crazy link chains can be fun if you explain them correctly and provide evidence.

Make your case understandable, when people read a card and then explain it briefly and why it is important I like that. Also voters are important!

Policy:

Only run K's if they are interesting to the round - and if YOU actually understand them, chances are if you don't - I also won't.

Clash with your opponents on their cards, ask them about them in questioning.

If you can try not to spread, do so. I like being able to understand your case more than having you try to get through it the whole time. If some cards are exceptionally long then I don't see it as trouble.

Counterplans are good if you can explain them correctly!

Impacts and solvency are important, if me or your opponent don't understand how your plan achieves something or why that is important then your case won't seem effective enough to win.

Impromptu:

Personal stories are super powerful so share them!

I like when people relate things to something more interesting, for example if you get the topic plant make it into a speech about how humans grow and blossom (like a plant).

If you can, memorized statistics are always interesting or if you bring in a phenomenon or historical event.

Engaging intros are important and will be given more preference, as well as speakers triangle!

I'm not as strict on time, just make sure you aren't using 2:30 and above of prep time if its not needed.

Qualifications:

2023 6A Congressional Debate State Champion

4x Region Champion

2x Semi-final Congressional House Debater at NSDA Nationals

5x NSDA National Qualifier

Speech and Debate Team Captain for Corner Canyon High School 22-23

Collegiate Debater at Utah State University

I promise I will give you a fair and reasonable ballot, I know what its like to be judged unfairly or be placed low in a round where you tried your best. Debate is hard but I think we should all be considerate of one another and be respectful, at the end of the day we are doing this for fun. Keep debating and never lose that passion!

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

I have been teaching and judging speech and debate for the past 10 years through NCFCA Christian Speech and Debate. I prefer to judge speeches and my first choice will always be interps. I look for good blocking, a road map when it is a platform and a good intro hook and outro for interps. I look for different takes on familiar subjects, I want to be entertained even if I am being informed.

I do not like spreading in debate and I believe that a good debate is one in which you can understand everyone who is speaking. I am always looking for evidence and help in the flow so I prefer students to reinforce when they are rebutting from what speech they are rebutting. I'm ok with a spicy debate but everyone must remember to be kind and respectful.