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.

Hello, I am a (new) parent judge. I have gotten training on how to judge and based on that, here are some requirements:
1. Be clear and concise
2. Stay on video
3. Be respectful of your opponent, the activity and the process - at all times
4. Please keep me in the chain using this email: antonio_correia@aya.yale.edu
5. My cell is 646-734-2420

My name is Helen Fu. I am a new parent judge. So please speak clearly and watch your speed.

Education: BS English for Science and Technology from Xi'An University in China

MS Speech Communication from Texas Christain University

Shortly after I graduated from TCU, I started a material handling company to serve dearlers and chain stores in North America. I rettired 2 years ago to pursue my dream of working with kids in poverty. As a business owner, I did more presentation than debating. Even if the formats are different, both need to convince your audience with Logos, Ethos and Pathos .

To judge high school debaters, I would value argument more than presentation.

The following is my criteria:

Clearity and relevance, Structure and organization, analysis and reasoning, delivery and syle.

Life is a journey not a destination. So enjoy your debating.as well as that of others.

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

I'm a former LD debater from high school (Mission San Jose, class of 2006). As a debater I half-qualified for the TOC my senior year (1 bid). Professionally, I'm now an electrical/biomedical engineer (UC Berkeley BS 2010, PhD 2015) and still use the logic and on-my-feet thinking that I acquired partly as a result of debate.

I believe that debate is an educational activity, and large contributors to the educational value of a debate round come from pre-round preparation (constructing good cases, being prepared for counterarguments, etc), and in-round thinking on your feet and presenting good rebuttals (making counter-arguments AND constructing a good narrative of why you win the round). As a judge, I try to intervene as little as possible, but this means the burden is on the debaters to explain clearly which arguments they are winning, why winning those arguments means they are winning the round in context of the V/VC, and why the arguments they are losing don't matter. As judge, my decision does not reflect whose arguments are "more true"; it reflects which side did a better job presenting their argument.

I flow by hand, so in online rounds I will be looking down most of the time. It's your responsibility to clearly label your sub-arguments so I know what you're referring to in later rebuttals.

Speed: I don't think talking much quicker than "gilmore girls" speed has much educational value - in the real world, you don't win logical arguments by simply spitting them out at a faster rate than your opponent. Your sentences should still sound like they are normal human speech, with no need to gasp for breath or pauses when there is no punctuation. Your speed should ideally come from being economical with your words. I would rather see good comparative analysis than dumping of arguments - it's more fun as a judge. And I expect you to go slower if your arguments are complicated and nuanced - no spreading through arguments that involve epistemology or ontology. I will yell out "slower" or similar if I think you are going too fast. Audio on zoom is less clear than in-person, so you may want to adjust your speed for clarity.

Timing and structure: As judge, I am the official timekeeper out of educational fairness, though I encourage you to time each other as well. Your prep time ends when you are ready to start your constructive/rebuttal. NO OFF-TIME ROADMAPS - often I find people end up taking extra prep time perhaps without meaning to. If your prep time runs out, then your next speech begins after a few seconds grace period to reset timers. If you go over time, I stop flowing and you effectively give your opponent additional prep time.

Theory arguments: I don't have a problem voting on these, but be sure to explain the jargon as I may not remember the exact meaning of specific theory terms. In theory debate, you are arguing that your opponent did something that violates the purpose of a debate round. That implicitly means you are brining my paradigm into the round. For best results, you may therefore want to appeal to elements of this paradigm if you make this type of argument.

Dropped arguments: A lack of response to an argument makes it more compelling to vote on, but it's still your responsibility to summarize the point of the argument and explain why it means you win the round.

No judge is truly unbiased, and neither am I. As a pragmatist, I tend to be skeptical of disproportionate impacts like policies leading to nuclear war, extinction etc (unless the resolution is about nuclear arsenal policy or similar). No objection to voting on these types of arguments if done well, but don't expect to just say "nuclear war is possible" and expect to win.

I'm a parent judge with IT background. I do not have a lot of judging experience. I wouldn't mind if you treat me as a brand new judge.

I've watched many LD debate rounds so have some level of understanding about debate but not a ton. You may assume I know nothing.

I'll flow the round. Email chain goes to kurthuang@outlook.com. Highlights on your doc will help.

Don't spread as I can't follow. When I can't follow, I won't stop you but will rely on your doc to get as much as I can (no promise).

I vote for the debater that best upholds his/her/their side of the resolution through effective analysis, evidence, delivery, reasoning and refutation.

Please respect your opponents, listen and respond accordingly.

Enjoy debating!

I am a first-time parent judge with a background in college teaching.

I will try to flow, but flowing spreading will be a big challenge. Please make sure to state your contentions, and sub-points slowly and clearly.

Please email your cases to apurva.radha@gmail.com . I will use them in case I miss a point during the round.

Thank you for debating. Good luck!

I am a first time parent judge, and non-native speaker. Please help me understand your points:

Please do not spread;

Please try avoiding jargon;

Please speak clearly and loud.

And it will be very helpful if you can send me the document as early as possible, to : li_dorothy@yahoo.com

Thank you.

Hi,I am a parent judge with IT background. I just started to learn LD debate and you can treat me as a brand new judge.

Email chain goes to: wei.teststorm@gmail.com

Guidelines for success:

1). Do not spread, speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly, limit the use of jargons.

2). Be respectful to your opponents and judge.

Have a great debate!

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

I'm a former varsity PF debater from Los Altos High School, CA and current college student.

Read the entire paradigm, please! This is also a paradigm aimed towards PF, so if this isn't a PF round, ask me for a verbal paradigm beforehand.

- Virtual Debate Stuffs

Email: shah.aman.a@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain or evidence sharing document.

Cameras: Unless you are having a tech issue, I expect cameras to be on.

Tech Issues: If either you or I have tech issues and I miss part of your speech, we will do our best to determine how much extra time you would need and I will allow you to repeat that section of the speech.

- Please don't ask me when you want to take prep. Tell me. Claim your prep with confidence because it's YOURS.

- Absolutely NO SPREADING at any point!! Your speaks will sink like the Lusitania (If you do not know what the Lusitania is, shame on you). I need to understand what you're saying. I am also a sleep-deprived student who does not have the mental capacity to be flowing a round where you are spreading (speed-reading). Also, Zoom audio is not conducive to spreading, so don't shoot yourself in the foot.

- You must SIGNPOST! It is totally okay for you to use off-time roadmaps and I encourage them. Please also signpost during your rebuttals and summaries especially to make sure I know what to flow and where to extend my flow. Also, number your responses!

- Please debate a PF Round: No kritiks, theory, counter-plans, etc. It's Public Forum, not Policy or Parli.

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits. For all other debate events, you tell me.

- Kindness: You need to be kind to your opponents. Do not be condescending towards your opponents or call their arguments silly, etc. I will call you out and tank your speaker points. Debate requires a certain decorum and if you cannot follow that, debate is not for you.

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

- Speaking Point Method: My standard speaking points will start at 27.5.

Speaks will go down if you use a lot of filler words (like, um, uh, etc.) or go over/under time (It is fine if you are within 10 seconds of the time limit on either side).

Speaks will go down more if you go over time than if you are under the time limit (especially with 3 minute summaries). Your speaks will go up if you show exemplary sportsmanship and are nice but firm during crossfire/cross-ex.

If you get 30 speaks from me, it means I believe you have descended as a deity (of whatever belief you may subscribe to) and speak like an angel.

Please ask me if you do not understand something in my paradigm or need some more clarification! Good luck!

If you need clarification regarding your RFD, please email me. If you are argumentative with me about my round decision and RFD, I will ignore you. So don't argue.

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

Hi, I'm Vivian.

Please add this to the chain: vivianta7@gmail.com -- all rounds should set up email chains before designated start time. I would like to be included.

• Please keep your delivery clear.

• I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Email chain goes to yuxingt@gmail.com. Highlights on your doc will be helpful.

First time parent judge with basic understanding of the rules and guidance. Please don’t spreading.

I'll flow the round but please try to control the time yourself too.

I vote for the debater that best upholds his/her/their side of the resolution through effective analysis, evidence, delivery, reasoning and refutation.

Please respect your opponents, listen and respond accordingly.

Hello! I'm a parent new to debate judging. Please don't spread and speak clearly so I can understand you. Also, if you could send me your documents with highlights asap for me to review it before the round start will be great. shelbytran@gmail.com

I look forward to hearing you debate!

This is my first time judging. Here are my preferences:

Please speak clearly and not too fast. Enunciate clearly

Clear and concise argument with logical links and impacts

Explain your arguments thoroughly and signpost in rebuttals.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Provide a summary at the end of the speech

Hi everyone,

I’m a parent judge, so please keep the debate traditional. Please speak slow and do not make nuanced arguments that are difficult for a parent to understand. Have fun and please be respectful to each other.

Thank you!

Hi. I am a lay parent judge. Please do not spread. I prefer normal speaking. Run whatever arguments you want. Good luck.

I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly.

I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.

My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."

Philosophy (like Kant) and psychology-based arguments will be harder for me to understand and follow so it will be hard for me to vote on them. Off topic arguments will not be effective with me.

hi, my name is Fei. please just refer to me as judge

**for harvard: if you plan to spread or run something highly progressive, dont pref me high.

send me your cases - yufeiyan294@gmail.com

I am a flay judge, I have judged ld before but please speak slowly and clearly, 50% of ur top speed should be ok - I can only judge you if I understand you

im not very familiar with ld jargon (fiat, disads, etc) but i can understand basic ones (magnitude, scope, etc)

please remember to weigh, give voters, and collapse

be nice to each other, don't be overly aggressive or speaks will be lowered

do not ask me to disclose after rounds.

have a good debate!