Agho-Otoghile,+Clement

Started debating in 7th grade at Dulles Middle School; debated entire high school career at Dulles High School (my experience there was very diverse). I am involved with the University of Houston Speech and Debate team.


 * Forensics is a //speaking// competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].**

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's //Apology// as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that **I do not think I know when I do not know**" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: **CLARITY!!!**

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be //clearly// articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. **Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the //substantive// level, is a must!**

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since **I vote per the flow!**, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.


 * Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric. **

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!