I am a parent judge who has been judging for 2 years now. I am not great at flowing. I focus on the evidence, arguments and rebuttals. I believe in quality over quantity and so don't try to rush through a lot of content in your initial speeches. Speak clearly without speeding.

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it with speaks.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

Hello!!

Happy Debate!!..

I am a Parent judge with 7 tournaments experience, prefer moderate pace & no spreading.

Looking forward to debates with Clear Arguments, Case Constructs with examples / stats / facts.

Respect towards opponents.

Prefer debaters to time.

Hi, I'm Dr. Yim and a volunteer judge. I currently work at a tech company (in the bay area) as a computer scientist and engineering manager. I've judged LD a couple of times in the past (where at least in one tournament all the way up to the last round).

Here's how I decide the winner.

- High importance: Whether you win in the value paradigm & framework arguments (esp how your contention points support your value).

- Medium importance: Whether you defend (and successfully attack) each contention point (ideas, supporting evidence, logical reasoning, and spontaneous response)

- Low but still important: Other factors (such as time management, conscious speaking, etiquette, etc.)

Basically I give a score for each contention point. That is then normalized to handle cases where a debater has 2 contention points vs. 3 contention points. For example, if you win the contention point battles (with a small margin) but lose in the value and criterion arguments (again with a small margin), you still win the debate as long as you've the higher score in the last scoring point than the debating partner. Similarly, if your and partner's contention point scores are on par, one who win the value argument will be the winner unless otherwise nothing is notable in the last scoring point. I hope that explains how I decide the winner and help you plan/prepare/debate accordingly.

Finally, please set a timer for yourself and your opponent. For example, say "my opponent ready? (yes) my time starts now".

Good luck and hope you enjoy the debates today!