Marlborough Middle School Invitational 2
2023 — Los Angeles, CA/US
LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidehi! I'm gabriela (she/her). add me to the email chain: gabrielaadler25@marlborough.org
also PLS have the email chain set up before the round and have it sent and ready by start time
marlborough 25 nyu 29
a lot of my opinions about debate come from Adam Torson and Chris Theis
but! any of those opinions can be changed through good debating other than voting foranything morally grody, ie. sexism, homophobia, racism etc.
tech > truth
policy > k > phil (kinda!) >>>>>>>>>tricks (please don't)
disclosure is always good andcondo is good
if I don't understand it by the end of the nr/2ar I am not voting for it!
my threshold for answering friv theory is VERY low, and all docs must be shared electronically
have fun debate well!!!!
Hello, my name is Siena and I use she/her pronouns. I am a varsity LD debater at Marlborough school!
Please add me to the email chain, my email is sienagrouf25@marlborough.org
I prefer plans, counterplans, disads and T/Theory, but I am familiar with most K positions as well. If you are reading a more unconventional K or phil argument, make sure to be explanatory, because I can't vote on arguments I don't understand. Substantive debate is always better than tricks, and every argument should have a claim, warrant and impact if you want it in the RFD!
Some thoughts in no particular order:
1) I default to util, and if you run another framework, be explanatory! Make sure I know how this framework interacts with the impacts in the round.
2) Be sure to sign post and be as organized as you can
3) I am okay with speed, as long as you speak clearly
4) Any argument that relies on your opponent missing it or misunderstanding it is not a good argument
5) Make sure to weigh, and write the ballot for me
6) Don't clip cards or be unethical with evidence in any way. If there is an evidence ethics challenge, make sure you are willing to stake the round on it, because I will need a recording to prove there was clipping. With power tagging and things like that, I will treat it as an argument against the evidence, but won't end the round for it.
7) No racism, sexism, ablism or any other ism will be tolerated whatsoever. Overall, don't be offensive or unkind to your opponent. We are all responsible for making debate educational and safe for everyone involved, so justbe a decent person! (Also being mean lowers your speaks)
My judging philosophy is very similar to most other Marlborough debaters and coaches, so if you want more details, you can check their paradigms. If you have any other questions, feel free to email me before the round.
Have fun, you've got this :)
Hi, my name is Jina (she/her) and I have debated LD at Marlborough School for four years. Please add me on the email chain: jinakang23@marlborough.org
Basics
- Be nice, debate is an educational activity that should be fun. This means absolutely no racist, sexist, or homophobic comments—any of these will result in both an L and low speaks.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh. I'm good with speed but make sure to explain to me in the 2AR/NR why I should vote for you. I won't do the work for you in my flow, so make sure you are clear enough to write my ballot for me.
- Signpost throughout your speeches!!
- I won't vote on tricks.
K
- I'm familiar with most Ks (set col, cap, fem, etc) and I generally enjoy K debates, but make sure to include clear judge explanation, especially if you will read an obscure K.
CP/DA
- All good
- If you would like me to judgekick, clearly explain why.
T/framework
- Love this, had many framework debates throughout high school.
Theory
- Will vote on Condo if you are very clear about why it outweighs ts or ks.
- Slow down on analytics.
Phil
- I'm not very familiar with Phil so may not be the best to read in round. I'm definitely open to these debates, if you clearly explain it to me and refer to the flow.
Hi, I'm Austin (he/him), I debate for Peninsula.
Email: austinloui@gmail.com
Phone Number: (310)-421-6805
I take most of my debate philosophy from Gordon Krauss and Jared Burke.
I encourage whatever way you would like to debate!
That being said, here's arguments based on my ability to evaluate them.
A - K &Larp
B - Phil
C - T & Theory
F - Tricks
K
I prefer K's that don't wholly rely on going for exclusionary frameworks and generally prefer links specific to the aff. Explain your alt thoroughly. If you explain your alt well I'd love that.
Larp
Default to sufficiency framing. Default to judge kick when condo or unsaid.
Theory
I'm fine with disclosure. No 'friv' theory would be nice. No tricks, I'd much rather not vote on that.
Other Notes
Speaks begin at 28.5 at round start, then are adjusted.
I'm fine with spreading and speed, though maintain clarity during blocks and tags.
For rehighlightings, "Insert rehighlighting if it comes from the original card text. If it comes from another part of the article, read it" - G. Krauss
"Compiling the doc" is prep time, so is flex prep.
I'm down to do email chain or speechdrop. Nowadays I sort of like speechdrop more (faster).
Hi I'm Brian Son (he/him/any)
3rd year Peninsula'25 HS LD debater
Speech Drop is preferred but if not, add me for the email chain at brianson437@gmail.com
- If you want to post round/ask questions that's fine. As novices, you guys should be asking questions on why you either won/ or especially if you lost.
- For advice for novices click this paradigm
- Always eager to judge
TLDR
Tech >>>>Truth
Debate is offense-defense
The amount of highlighting on your cards determines how much weight I grant it. Less highlighting = less weight.
If your arguments don't make too much sense, I grant it less risk. If your argument makes no sense then that's not my problem to solve.
Read re-highlightings if it's unhighlighted by the other team.
Spreading is fine, but don't disregard clarity.
If the speech is unflowable, I'll clear. If still, I'll grant the arguments less risk depending on how severe.
Blocks are fine but I think they are too extensively used as a crutch instead of a tool.
Clash debates are the best debates. Therefore, things like reused process CPs, exclusionary frameworks, hidden SPEC, and "tricks" annoy me.
I’m AFF biased towards PICs, Floating PIKs, and Process CPs bad but NEG on condo.
DISCLAIMER
All of my opinions are subject to change.
If you know me from debate, TDI, etc, treat me like a normal judge in round. Out of round, idc.
Debated for a pretty long time with ups and downs.
Adults that inspire me: Gordon Krauss, Jared Burke, Rayeed Rahman (coaches); Patrick Fox (favorite judge)
Peers who have impacted me include Alex Borgas (for the best), Ethan Yang, Aiden Kim, Niranjan Deshpande, Rishad Vaghaiwalla, Brian Son, Abby Merges, Leah Fischer (for better), Matthew Tamayo and Kris Deng (for worse), and Edward Min (much much much much much worser)
Debate done well may as well be an art form. The amount of time and energy that goes into these things cannot go understated. But like any skill, it requires substantial investment of both of those things. For some it comes quick, for others slow, yet everybody starts somewhere and nobody starts out #1. Put your best foot forward. What that looks like should look different for different individuals and that's the beauty of an activity with so much stylistic diversity.
I believe three things:
1. There is a role for discourse analysis and critique in this activity.
2. Talking about (and learning about) moral philosophy is important.
3. You should read arguments that win without exploiting speech times or prep disparities.
'Spreading consent' 'disclose role of the ballot for safety' sort of arguments = auto loss. I will not relive my worst debate memories for your time skew. Being involved with your squad's evidence preparation in a meaningful way would be a better use of your time. Strive to take an active role in your own success.
Email: w267ww@gmail.com
Senior LD Debater at Peninsula
I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice LD is essential, I debate on the national circuit and am familiar with all the progressive arguments that novices will run. I think the most important thing is remembering the line-by-line arguments your opponent made and not dropping anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc), and also do the impact clac on the internal link level.
I find that, in many cases, debater simply respond to their opponent's argument by rephrasing their own case and evidence without any interaction (or card and evidence get completely forgotten and are never mentioned later in the round). Tell me why your evidence is better and how their evidence isn't contextualize to yours and didn't address it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you're reading can be very helpful.
Finally please be respectful and have fun.