Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me, its your fault

---

yes email chain : arnavdani@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

random:

refer to ayan nath's and anshul reddy's paradigm for some other cool insights ab debate i agree with

Please add me to email chains, email is 22angelag@students.harker.org.

Experience: I have been doing LD for four years.

(I will be flowing + keeping track of time the entire round, so please signpost throughout to make it easier)

- Weigh arguments (! calc etc.)

- the quality of arguments over quantity

- Everything not responded to in the 1ar, 2nr, or 2ar are essentially conceded

- Spreading is fine, just be clear and make sure that everyone in the round can understand you

- Don't steal prep time (if I see you typing during dead time, that may affect your speaks/decision depending on the situation), be disrespectful during CX, intentionally lie about arguments, or go incredibly over time (I'll give you a 10 second grace period to finish a sentence after the timer goes off) or it will impact your speaker points.

- tech > truth but obviously don’t make any arguments that are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc

- I prefer substance/policy debates

Please feel free to ask me anything about my judging philosophy or any other concerns you may have before the round.

If you have any questions/concerns you can email me at 22arkitaj@students.harker.org

Please add me to any email chains/google docs before the round

Experience: I was a Varsity Policy debater for 4 years and have been doing LD for two years.

(I will be flowing + keeping track of time the entire round, so please signpost throughout to make it easier)

- Weigh arguments (! calc etc.)

- the quality of arguments over quantity

- Everything not responded to in the rebuttal is essentially conceded

- Spreading is fine, just be clear and make sure that everyone in the round can understand you

- Don't steal prep time (if I see you typing during dead time, that may affect your speaks/decision depending on the situation), be disrespectful during CX, intentionally lie about arguments, or go incredibly over time (I'll give you a 10 second grace period to finish a sentence after the timer goes off) or it will impact your speaker points (ie. you can lose a round but possibly have higher speaks than your opponent and vice versa)

Please feel free to ask me anything about my judging philosophy or any other concerns you may have before the round.

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.

Hi! please add me to the email chain - lilykinnear22@marlborough.org

I am currently a varsity debater at Marlborough school so I am familiar with topics/debate jargon etc.

- I am fine with speed just make sure to slow down on tags and important analytics if you want me to catch them (i.e don't spread through 7 minutes of analytics in the NR and then expect me to vote on an unanswered 5 second blip)

- You can pretty much read whatever you want but I likely won't vote on sketchy T or tricks

- Most T and topicality are completely fine just make sure the abuse is substantive

- I am familiar with most standard K positions but if it a super unique K slow down and explain thoroughly. I also am not very familiar with obscure phil positions and will probably be lost ...

- Don't be sketchy - its obvious to everyone when you spend five minutes sending your doc and frantically typing that you're stealing prep so don't do it (I also don't count sending the doc as prep)

- Obviously don't be rude - I understand being perceptually dominant in cross-ex but there's no need to be actively rude or cruel.

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

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

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me,its your fault

---

yes email chain : anshureddy30@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

womp womp

thugs ts out

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

misc:

fine with inserting rehighlightings

refer to arnav dani and muzzi khan's paradigm for debate arguments I agree with

hi! i'm aly (second year out, qualified to toc x2 (semis senior year))

toplevel:

have fun and be kind

show up before the round start time, that is when the 1ac should begin. starting early, sitting down early if you've won, taking less prep, etc = speaks boost.

please be as clear as possible, signpost, and do complete warranting (a conceded tagline is not an argument); i have no problem not voting on arguments i didn’t understand or flow in the first speech they were introduced - this is especially true considering i am much less involved than i used to be

i primarily read and am better for policy debates about the topic

arguments start at zero and go up with warranting based on the claim, ie larger or unintuitive claims need stronger warrants (spark/ontology need more warranting than nuke war bad/contingency)

compiling a doc and flow clarification are prep or cx; there is no flow clarification time slot in debate

not a fan of scripted rebuttals, arguments recycled across topics, and strategies that rely on your opponent missing something

will not vote on:

arguments that deny the badness of racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia/death/etc, this is probably an auto loss with very low speaks depending on severity

independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced and do not have a reason why they are

less necessary specifics:

k:

needs to prove the aff is bad; links don’t need to be to the plan, but should be to ideas that a good potion of the aff focuses or relies on

if i can’t coherently explain your theory of power back to you, you will not win

please answer the case/contextualize links… or i will probably vote on extinction ows

not a fan of ks that rely on blippy 2nr tricks to win (vtl/unwarranted root cause/etc)

dont like long overviews — preferably put stuff on the line by line and in the order of the 1ar

i will disregard a floating pik claim if it isn’t hinted at in the 1nc or cx

policy:

please weigh / ev comparison / argument resolution

spin is more important than the evidence but it’s not if your opponent points it out, so make sure you still have warrants

inserting rehighlighings is fine for defense (but you still need to explain it in the speech), you should read for offense

default judge kick

default policy presumption

theory:

good for topic related t args, not so great for spreading through plans bad blocks or any other similar silly generic

theoretical objections to process cps should be permutations, not theory

in the absence of any argumentation(these can all be changed w a sentence): ci on t, reasonability on theory, dtd on 1nc t and theory, dta on 1ar theory except condo, no rvis, t > 1nc theory > 1ar theory > everything else, fairness and edu are voters

k affs:

non t affs—never ran them, not great for you if you’re aff

please try to put stuff on the line by line as much as possible, or contextualize your top level arguments

don't feel comfortable adjudicating personal narratives/performances/survival strats/ad-homs

phil:

needs to be sufficiently explained (especially if not kant), but i'm a big fan of taking advantage of the fact that most util justifications are missing pieces and/or assume consequentialism

default epistemic confidence

lay/trad/novices:

go slow and be accessible

i will evaluate every round technically regardless of style, that being said lay debaters can beat circuit debaters through solid warranting and isolation of key args

ev ethics:

would prefer to see this read as a shell instead of you calling it - if you call it on something friv that doesn’t change the meaning of the evidence you're not getting great speaks. this is what constitutes a challenge:

—card starts or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

—the original text of the cited work has been edited (not bracketed)

—card has been cut to make a claim that the actual article does not make (this should be really obvious if you are calling it)

clipping:

you need a recording and i’ll evaluate based on tournament or nsda standards

online:

record your speeches, i won't let you regive them if you cut out

other:

i coach for dd -- relevant policies here: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 6+ years on the lay and circuit level and continue to participate in speech and debate events at UC Berkeley. I have experience judging a wide variety of formats. To win my ballot, spend a continuous amount of time explaining why you win and weighing impacts & evidence. I really like clear voters at the end of the debate to truly explain why I should vote your way.