I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.com

Here are some guidelines for success:

1) Please speak clearly; I can only vote for an argument I thoroughly understand and is well supported. Please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible.

2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

5). Confidence, Presentation and Clarity of speech is half the game. Present yourself clean and neat; conduct yourself calm and collected.

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

Hello, my name is Kerem Esin. Here are my judging criteria:
1. I place high value on the quality of the argument. Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas in an understandable, organized manner.

2. I also consider delivery of the argument. Debaters should express their ideas in a clear and concise manner. Going over the time limit by more than 10 seconds will reflect poorly in your scoring. Honor your time commitments. Additionally, I ask that debaters speak clearly and avoid spreading so that I can properly follow their line of reasoning. If I am unable to hear you clearly, I cannot give you credit for what you are saying.

3. Debaters must be respectful of their opponents. Giving opponents rude/judgmental looks, interrupting, use of foul/inappropriate language towards opponents, is highly frowned upon. Remember, we are all here to have fun and gain valuable experience, so poor etiquette has no place at this tournament.

In short, I place high value on organization and clarity. Honor your time commitments and be respectful. Thank you all for being here and I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments!

Former LD debater with some experience in PF and Congress. Flow judge. I make a point of being as much of a blank slate as I can, but I'm only human. K's, theory, and everything else is fully on the table, but considering how long it's been you shouldn't assume I know Habermas's or Foucault's arguments by heart. Off-time roadmaps are perfectly acceptable.

I haven't been in the debate space for a few years, so my ability to understand spreads is a bit rusty. I'll try my best to keep up with y'all, but... speedrun your construction at your own risk.

I'll try to be in our room early, so feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

Email: quinn.foster@gmail.com

I value coherent, well structured arguments and rebuttals. 

I'm not a fan of spreading. 

I'm old. I was up late and I'm poorly rested. If you run at 4x speed it may not be well received. 

I have been judging since the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. I have judged both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debates as part of the Florida Gulf Coast Catholic Forensics League. I have judged in local and regional events including 8 in-person tournaments and 1 online tournament. I had the privilege of judging the Final Round of the National Lincoln-Douglas Debate last year. I do not like spreading. If I can not understand an argument, then I can not give credit to the points of that argument.

I feel that a few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. In addition, arguments should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should provide voters answers to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should also extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

Oral prompting won't affect my decisions.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

I prefer empirical arguments over philosophical and theoretical to support a value position.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

Debaters should make sure that all claims are supported with specific, defined examples with no paraphrasing.

Off case arguments should have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities is not winning a debate.

Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I prefer speaking slow to understand the arguments better. I would like you to collapse on one argument.