PARENT JUDGE, NO SPREADING, NO YELLING, SIGNPOSTING AND CLEAR ARGUMENTS APPRECIATED. KEEP YOUR OWN TIME.

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.

I am a lay judge. I typically look for classic argument.

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly. If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) Use credible sources.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep track your own time.

I am not a lay judge. I participated in speech and debate when I was in high school. I qualified for nationals in both NSDA and CFL for Lincoln Douglas debate. Flow judge. I also participated in extemporaneous speech as a double entry at the national tournament. I have done congress (which were done on Friday nights before main tournaments on Saturday), impromptu, policy, and an abandoned category called Group Discussion.

In dramatic events I like to see a wide range of emotions and voices. I also like to see times close to perfect and great audience engagement. Your characters must be clear and unique and I need to see the scene you are conveying to the audience.

I am a lay judge and will typically begin looking for a classic argument.

I expect a respectful and cordial debate from all of the sides and look forward to hearing your presentation. My preferred debate rate of delivery is lower than eight.

Follow the rules of competition

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

Track your time

Speak Clearly

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

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

Inexperienced lay judge.

I am a lay judge/parent judge affiliated with Palm Harbor University High School in Pinellas County, Florida. An attorney by profession, I work as a consultant to providers in the healthcare industry.

I began judging high school debate tournaments in the 2022-2023 school year, so I consider myself relatively new to the process. I did not debate in high school or college, so be careful with the debate jargon and don't assume I'm proficient in it - take the time to explain or, better yet, avoid jargon altogether if possible.

Participants should keep and adhere to time limits. I will be timing as well, and will disregard arguments made after time has expired.

Clarity is crucial to communication, so speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you or keep up with your pace then you're not communicating. Be respectful of your fellow debaters and avoid talking over each other.

I am looking for a well-rounded performance, my goal is to weigh arguments/style/analytics/evidence equally. I prefer quotations over paraphrasing, and appreciate detailed citations. If you're going to cite a source, you should be able to explain why it is a relevant authority.

Most of all enjoy yourself and have fun!

rakent@aol.com

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

When I am judging, I will be awarding points based on effectiveness of argument, use of references/sources and clear communication. I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and sources/references to the opponents' arguments to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents' arguments occurred.

I welcome any roadmap or outlines to provide a clear walkthrough of what will be presented.

I also look for verbal communication - pitch, tone, and pace (no spreading) and non-verbal communication - eye contact, body language, use of space, hand gestures.

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: LD and Public Forum

When judging, I will be awarding points on effectiveness of argument, consistency of logic, use of data and references, and clear communication.

Sometimes I take notes as reminder for myself to reflect on during later scoring.

In cross examination I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and data/references to the opponents arguments, to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents arguments occurred.

Substance is an important element in the overall evaluation, as is the effectiveness of communication and argument.

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

Keywords below:

Slow: I prefer debaters who speak slowly and deliberately. This allows me to better understand their arguments and follow their logic

Methodical: I appreciate debaters who are organized and methodical in their presentations. This makes it easier for me to follow their arguments and evaluate their evidence

Persuasive: I am looking for debaters who can persuade me to agree with their arguments. This requires them to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, and to support them with strong evidence

Clarity: I value debaters who can articulate their arguments clearly and concisely. This means avoiding jargon and technical language, and using examples to illustrate their points

Demeanor: I appreciate debaters who are respectful and professional in their demeanor. This means avoiding personal attacks and inflammatory language

Rebuttals: I believe that rebuttals are an important part of any debate. They allow debaters to respond to their opponents' arguments and to further develop their own arguments. I am looking for debaters who can effectively rebut their opponents' arguments and who can use rebuttals to strengthen their own case

Effective Use of Time: I appreciate debaters who can manage their time effectively. This means knowing how much time they have for each section of their speech and using that time wisely. It also means being able to adjust their speech as needed if they are running out of time

Smile: I appreciate debaters who smile and project a positive attitude throughout the round. This makes the debate more enjoyable for everyone involved.

I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist) if asked by a debate competitor to do so. If a competitor keeps speaking for ~3-5 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction).

I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations, road-mapping or argumentation. For example, if a debate competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. I will prohibit this and politely ask the competitor to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).

Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.

"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly.

I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive.

For Policy and Lincoln Douglas events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For PFD, Pro to my left, Con to my right.