Diana Alvarez

she/her

dianadebate@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain.

I am excited to be your judge and I am here to listen to your arguments. As long as they not discriminate or exclude others, I will consider them whether you are reading a K-Aff or have 5 Disadvantages.

I am a former HS policy debater, I judged and coached before. I am familiar with the structure but not the current topic. Please explain your arguments well and remain respectful towards everyone.

For more specific questions, please email me or ask me before the round.

Framework is important to me. I would like to know through what lens I should evaluate your arguments. Why is your framework better than your opponent’s framework?

Email: chiujiaen@gmail.com

Phone: 310-625-2385

Be nice and explain your arguments well.

Miscellaneous:

If you spread, you are required to send a copy of the doc to your opponent at the start of your speech.

Add me onto the email chain (email above).

Flex prep is allowed.

You are required to time your speeches.

bealculligan@gmail.com

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

I debated for Immaculate Heart and qualified for TOC 2x

I like policy arguments (impact turns are my favorite) and am best at evaluating those debates. Generally, if you don’t need to update what you read (substantially) with the topic, you don’t want me in the back.

Misc thoughts:

• Read good evidence! Highlight warrants!
• Most k framework arguments (i.e., aff doesn’t get the case) are impossible to win in an evenly-matched debate
• All k framework arguments need to be in the 1nc and should not take the form of ONLY a rob/roj argument
• Alternatives largely confuse me. Most that do something (other than reject the aff) are probably cheating or should lose to a legitimate alt fails or is independently bad arguments
• If my understanding of an argument greatly changes from each speech 2nr explanation will be new and evaluated as such (not at all)
• Debate is a game (fairness is good)
• Philosophical arguments need cards— that being said, I love good phil debates (going NC/AC will be rewarded w high speaks)
• All arguments need a claim + warrant + impact - if your argument does not (i.e., tricks), the bar for answering them is on the floor
• I am persuaded by reasonability + defense against friv theory
• The best T arguments are specific to the topic
• Don’t read grammar-based arguments if you don’t understand them
• Evidence ethics and other cheating accusations are a reason to stake the debate (not to read theory)
• Please disclose!

Marlborough '22, I compete in LD, mostly in circuit tournaments.

Please add me to the email chain: juliannehannon22@marlborough.org

she/her/hers

General

Logic > Tech > Truth

My paradigm is pretty similar to other Marlborough debater and coaches.

Organization and weighing are really important, sign post to make it easy to follow along.

Whatever speed you go at should be fine as long as it is not exceptionally fast.

Flex prep is fine.

Sending the doc doesn't count as prep, but please don't be sketchy about your prep time.

Arguments

I am very comfortable with plans, CPs/PICs, DAs, T, theory, and some Ks (as long as they have clear explanations). I will probably not be a very good judge for unconventional Ks or phil positions (I don't have a very good understanding of high theory kritiks, but if they are explained well I will vote on them).

I mostly read plans on the aff and CPs and DAs on the neg, and I most enjoy plan vs CP/DA policy-style debates.

I strongly dislike tricks, truth testing, and friv theory. I do not want to vote on these arguments, but I will if I have to.

use sho2023@bwscampus.com for any email chains (if remote, file share is fine!)

pronouns: she/her

general note that paradigm generally written in order of what's most to least important to me (so if you're in a time crunch don't worry about missing something very crucial at the bottom)

---

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. any of these things will get you an L20 at best

(also do not deliberately outspread novice debaters. i'll give you the win if you earn it but i won't be happy about it. same goes for being unnecessarily rude to opps in general, there's a line between having perceptual dominance and just being mean and crossing it will wreck your speaks)

tech > truth

probably best at judging trad/LARP debate, run whatever you're best at but i can't vote for something i don't understand

i understand standard k's (setcol, cap, etc.) but will need longer or more in depth explanations for high level k's/phil/etc.

i love theory. i hate friv theory. if you're spreading a bunch of analytics about it (or other things) please send a doc to make sure i catch everything
on theory: generally i lean towards competing interps and no rvi's but i will vote either way. disclosure theory is a 99% chance of a win with the 1% being lying about no disclosure or running it on someone who clearly doesn't understand what the wiki is. condo bad might be true but not if there's only one conditional off

explain why dropped args are important, don't just say they're conceded

weigh!! tell me how to vote and why!!

send me a picture of your pet through my email and i'll add +0.1 to your speaks. if you don't have a pet email me a joke.

I debate on the LD national circuit for Marlborough.

Please put me on the email chain: anyakarumanchi22@marlborough.org

I prefer policy-style debate and mostly run CPs, DAs, and T/Theory. I am familiar with basic Ks and I have run Ks before, but I am not very well immersed in the literature, so be sure to be explanatory, especially for unconventional Ks. I am not a good judge for phil/tricks. I highly prefer a substantive debate over, say, going for condo against 1 condo CP, but I will generally vote on anything that meets the threshold of an argument.

*record your speeches for online debate*

- an argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact

- I'm fine with speed, but don't sacrifice clarity (online debate probably warrants going a bit slower)

- I default to util; if you run another framework be explanatory

- sign post and be as organized as possible

- weighing can be a tie-breaker

- I try to be as least interventionist as possible; you should write the ballot for me

- Don't be offensive or rude. Part of your role as a debater is to make the experience educational and comfortable for everyone. This is especially true in debates where you are the more experienced debater.

My judging philosophy is similar to other Marlborough debaters and coaches, so if you want a more in-depth look, feel free to check their paradigms. I debated this topic so you can also check my wiki to see the types of arguments I read.

I am happy to explain to you the reason for my decision and answer any questions you have after round as long as you are respectful. Feel free to email me with any questions before round.

I am a Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debater from Las Vegas. I enjoy judging debates and love hearing new arguments from different perspectives.

I don't love stupid theory arguments or K's but will hear them out if you want to run it

I personally do not mind considering abstract arguments as long as you can provide warrants and reasonable explanations. Maintaining a nice flow in your speeches and following your "road maps" would make it easier for me to flow your speeches.

I also appreciate good humor or any creativity in your speeches.

Please talk clearly, I don't mind if debaters spread but if I cannot understand what you're saying, then your points will not be recorded.

I will give extra speaker points if you bring me an iced caramel macchiato

My email is andrewlvds@gmail.com

Hi, I am Macy! (they/them)

Please add me to the email chain: macy.lerner@yale.edu

Parli

I primarily competed in Lincoln-Douglas, so I am not as familiar with the parli specific norms for debate. However, I have a lot of experience flowing and evaluating debate rounds. I have coached for the New Haven UDL since Fall 2022 so I have a multiple years of experience coaching and judging parli debate rounds.

LD

I am former varsity LD debater at Marlborough who graduated in 2022. I competed in circuit tournaments and tended to run policy arguments. I am no longer competing and am not frequently judging LD, so I will not know any of the topic-specific jargon.

General

- I am fine with spreading, but please be clear and slow down on analytics

- Please sign post

- Flex prep is fine with me

Arguments

- I am very comfortable with T, Theory, CPs, and DAs. I do not read as many Ks, so please make sure to be explanatory in the NR

- I am not a good judge for uncommon Ks and am not a big fan of pomo ks like Baudrillard or Deleuze

- I have very little experience with phil so be extra explanatory. Also please slow down on analytics because I will not vote on arguments unless I hear the warrant in the AC/NC etc

- I mostly read policy plans, CPs, and DAs and am most comfortable with adjudicating these debates.

- I will not vote on tricks

Hi! I'm Jane (Harvard '26). I debated for Immaculate Heart for three years and qualified to the TOC 2x.

Put me on the email chain – jane.lichtman@gmail.com.

Policy:

- Yes! My favorite strategies center heavily on impact turns. Also a fan of the politics DA and process CPs. Read more 2NR evidence!

- Neg-leaning on condo and most other CP theory arguments. I like competition debates.

- Insert re-highlighting. I'll default to judge kicking the CP (but the 2NR should remind me).

T/Theory:

- Defaults: reasonability, DTA when possible, fairness = education, no RVIs.

- I didn't read frivolous theory, but I'll (ambivalently) vote for these arguments if you win competing interps.

- Re: Nebel – not my favorite, but I understand that it's sometimes necessary against small affs. Blitzing through 6 minutes of scripted plans bad arguments = difficult to flow and not very impressive.

- You should disclose – no exceptions.

Kritiks:

- Not a fan.

- Affs get to weigh the case. In that vein, the 2AR should almost always be framework + extinction outweighs.

- K's become (marginally) more viable when the 2NR wins that extinction is inevitable, the link turns case, and/or the risk of the advantage is very low.

- 2NR framework interpretations are new arguments and will be disregarded.

- Any K that purports to link to the aff's rhetoric must pull lines from 1AC evidence. "Threat inflation"-style link arguments are non-starters without beating the aff's internal links.

- Most alts do nothing; if the alt "solves case" against a policy aff, it should lose to a theory argument. The aff should take up this fight more often.

- Re: K's vs. phil affs – these seem unwinnable for the neg without disproving the aff's syllogism.

Non-T Affs:

- Firmly believe that affs should defend a topical plan.

- Fairness = clash >>> everything else. I also enjoy impact turns (e.g. heg, cap, and liberalism good).

- Most non-T affs seem to rely on implicit (read: unjustified) assumptions about debate’s impact on subject formation and fail to clear the presumption barrier.

- Unfamiliar with K vs. K debate.

Phil:

- I really like these arguments, although I rarely read them. Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Over-explain if your framework isn't util or Kant.

- The 1AC should have a framework – new 1AR framework justifications are probably illegitimate.

Tricks:

- I never read tricks and I'd prefer not to judge cheap-shot strategies, but I'll hear them out. Theory tricks seem intuitive; substantive tricks probably require more explanation.

Hey! I'm Leighton Liu. I am a varsity debater for The Meadows School.

I expect both debaters to be polite and respectful to each other and have a clean fair debate.

Other than that, I will listen to most arguments as long as the evidence and explanation is sufficient. Please do not run theory.

Put me in the email chain, my email is ll856@icloud.com

Email: jacobnamgung@gmail.com

be nice

Hi,

TLDR: I've done 4 years of LD for Marlborough School and 3 years of PF read anything in front of me at any speed but be kind and slow down for tags

Framework: depending on how progressive your circuit is, make your own choices I'm most comfortable with util, I'll listen to anything but explain it fully if you are going to read it. If you do read framing USE IT, this takes up speech time don't let it disappear in your last few speeches.

General stuff: Slow down for tags, articulate your links, solve for your offense. Fully articulate your arguments and why they matter. Please engage with your opponent there is nothing worse than a debate without clash. Except for a debate where the debaters are rude or cruel.

Ks: I've run them I have a solid understanding of the basics, don't assume I understand your obscure stuff but slow down for tags and articulate links and it'll be fine. You must prove alt solvency. If you don't solve theres no reason to vote for you

Email me any questions and the cases: gnelson1@macalester.edu

Haaaaaaiiiii<3333 (づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ

My name is Oliver Song. I'm a varsity debater at The Meadows School. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.

I do not like spreading!! Sorry! ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ

I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.

Please be nice !!!!! (✿◠‿◠)

Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Keep in mind humor can sway me. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation

Lets all have fun and debate LIKE A BOSS! (⌐■_■)

Hey Everyone! (Last Updated: 10/19/2020)

I'm Rahul Yates. I'm a sophomore at Brentwood School. I started debate in 6th grade, competed in MSPDP in 7th grade, and since 9th grade I've been competing in LD (lay, flay, and circuit). I'm getting better at circuit, and I've made it to Elims & won speaker awards at lay/flay tournaments. I will judge you to the best of my abilities.

Since I'm mostly judging novices, I should be able to understand what you all are saying in terms of argumentation. For the email chain: ryates2023@bwscampus.com will do. Pronouns: he/him/his

Some specifics:

- Framework: I hate like intense framework and huge framework debates, but I do expect you (when you and your opponent have different frameworks) to explain to me why your framework matters, why I should evaluate this debate under it, and why you win under BOTH your framework and your opponent's framework.

*Note about frameworks: I usually debate util or structural violence frameworks (which I believe are the best and simplest), so I will generally like it if you have that as your framework. For the Sept/Oct topic, I know people like having Democracy or rights frameworks, but I will need you to explain why I should prefer that over your opponents framework, especially since I will probably default to util or SV.*

- Contentions/DAs/CPs: I'm pretty familiar with these. I tend to read stock positions or positions that are pretty close to stock. I will generally prefer ones that have a clear link and impact. So, if you are reading a contention about how social inequality in the US will lead to a totalitarian regime, I will need more than 2 cards in it and a clear link and impact for me to really believe the credibility of this argument.

- Kritiks/Performances: While I probably won't be seeing a lot of these, I have a hard time truly understanding these, so if you decide to read one, please make sure you explain it really well. I generally prefer things that really engage with the topic, but if you believe that your K or performance pertains to the topic and is more important than the actual topic itself, please make sure you are ready to explain this.

- Theory: I like theory. While I probably won't be seeing a lot of it, I think theory is a really smart way to call out your opponent for something. I'll be amused if you read like random/frivolous theory in front of me, although I probably won't vote on it as much, but other things like PICs Bad theory kind of stuff is fine, and I think you should read it. It's a lot better than actually trying to engage with your opponent's unfairness. I'm fine with Disclosure Theory; go for it. Unless your opponent has a really good reason why they shouldn't/didn't disclose, I'll vote on it. When you read theory against an argument, I will evaluate it above the argument itself (theory = highest layer).

- Speed: I'm fine with any speed. If you notice your opponent is talking a lot slower than you are or will be, try to slow down a little bit so you don't look too rude, but it's not your problem that they're reading slowly. Read as fast as you want as long as the tag lines are clear and that you emphasize the important things you want me to listen to. If you're spreading and I don't have the doc, eventually I'll just stop flowing which probably won't be so good for you.

- CX: Use this well. Clarifying questions are fine. Don't ask too many because you don't want to seem like you have no clue (even if you do) what your opponent said, and it also helps me (the judge) understand the opponent's arguments better, which you don't want to waste your own time on. I'll really love it if you use CX for a solid line of questioning, and then bring it up in a speech.

- Impacts & Weighing: As I said before, please make sure most/all of your arguments have some kind of impact to them so I can evaluate them. I think weighing in the 2NR and 2AR are really helpful for me to understand the main points of the round and then vote on them. No weighing will make my job a lot harder.

- Speaking/Speech Delivery: I know that debate can be tiring and straining, so I won't dock you if you seem tired. Just try not to do things like yawn in the middle of a debate (my opponent did this twice in one speech once) and seem really uninterested. Even if you're making good points, I will feel like you don't really care, and it may lead me to consider what your opponent is saying more than what you are.

- Other things: Don't be rude. If your opponent is being unnecessarily rude, then I will love it if you throw some sass back at them. They started it, not you. Don't get too contentious though. I know everyone trips up sometimes, but please don't say a racist/sexist/homophobic etc. argument and then keep repeating it. Bonus points if you call out your opponent for doing this.

- Other things pt. 2: I'm not really sure if I prefer tech over truth or vice versa. If you read an argument and it is dropped, I will flow it through and assume it is true. In terms of dropped arguments, I know everyone drops things on both sides, and honestly dropping arguments is fine sometimes, especially if the argument doesn't really have much of an impact. About impacts, I really like it when each contention/CP/DA has some sort of impact. If you just read a contention telling me social inequality exists, I feel like that's a waste of time for you and me. Instead, connect that social inequality to the resolution and your argument, and how you solve for it. Lastly, please try not to misrepresent/strawman your opponent's arguments. Unless it's a really confusing argument that neither you nor I understand, please use CX and your mind to figure it out. If you start saying random things to an argument that is completely different to what your opponent read, you probably won't get my ballot.

I know this was a lot, but at the end of the day, just present what you have prepared and do your best to engage with your opponent, and I will do my best to make sure I deliver a fair decision. I've lost too many rounds to unfair (in my opinion) decisions, and I don't want to leave you feeling that way.