hi! I'm Gabi. add me to the email chain: gabrielaadler25@marlborough.org

I've done LD for Marlborough for 4 years and my pronouns are she/her

TLDR: I will not vote on a top-level one-liner, explain things and weigh them. I'm judging b/c I love doing debate- please do not make me leave this round with a different opinion. all the love!

Basics

1. any argument that is sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. will be an auto L and the lowest speaks possible
2. the same goes for ethics violations (ie. clipping cards) - I need a recording to prove card clipping
3. I will not vote for tricks. like, do not run tricks in front of me.
4. I will also not vote for any morally gross things, ie. genocide good or oppression of good
5. PLEASE slow down on analytics
6. you can insert re-highlighting
7. and be a nice person - being rude to people is not going to help you out. debate is educational and the space it occurs in should be safe. remember to have fun!!

T

-fairness and education are important but how will you be educated without an actual clash in the debate ????

-PLEASE lbl the T debate, just saying "pref our intern" is not enough

-no RVIs

-T-FWK against k-affs is always nice

-DTD unless you tell me not to

-I do not love T, but if you explain and do a good job with it, I'll be an easier ballot

K

-I can handle basic Ks (cap, sector, etc) but please explain what the argument is

-I love a nice link/impact debate - perms are nice but don't forget offense on the K

-dropping the alt non-uqs the k and it will be hard to convince me otherwise

-lots of lbl, please !!!!

-cap isn't great!! disastrous, Everest-level uphill climb on that one

-identity-based Ks should almost always be read by individuals that belong to those identities

-overall I just love Ks, but not to the extent that I know EVERYTHING about them- judge's explanation will still be key

CP

-I think the condo is good to an extent, but girlie pop if you wanna kick 6/7 off, I cannot stand by you.

-love a good PIC, just be so serious if you're doing the whole aff but ONE tiny little thing

-please give me solvency, a cp isn't a cp unless it actually can stand its ground - THIS GOES FOR THOSE LIKE, 10 PLANK CPS

-always know your NB! and please make sure that you do NOT link

-I don't have much else to say, but when appropriate, a cp is not going to hurt you

DA

-tell me why the DA is important, ie. why the risk of the DA is higher in the aff world and how only the to neg can prevent that. impact debate matters.

-LINK DEBATE!!!!! a link turn goes a long way, and without a strong and specific link you have absolutely no offense

-for politics DAs: please make sure what you're reading is relevant. I'm not so sure how ev based on the results of an election that occurred 2+ years ago can be brink ev

-impact calc matters

Theory

-no thank you(except condo if its 3+)

-I will never vote for friv theory. do not read it in front of me - I will not hear you out like, at all

-DISCLOSURE

disclosure is always a good thing. I do think everyone should use open source, and keep their wiki as up-to-date as possible. that being said, a forgotten OS from the 2020 JF topic is not a violation that I will be willing to vote on. disclosure should be a tool for education, not in-round abuse. the only way I would vote on disclosure similar to the aforementioned one would be if the shell is completely dropped.

Phil

-I am sad to say that I do not understand Phil, I am not a good judge of Phil, and I won't be able to properly judge a round in which Phil is read. I'll probably just consider Phil as a method of framing

Other

-I LOVE an aggressive c/x, that being said, rude and perceptually dominant or aggressive are very different things

-I do not disclose speaks

-I will always answer questions after a round! if you have any further questions that you would like to ask me, email me!

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 a few basic K positions as well. If you are reading a more unconventional K, or phil argument, make sure to be explanatory, because I am not very well immersed in much of the literature. I much prefer a substantive debate over tricks, and every argument should have a claim, warrant and impact.

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

- Be sure to sign post and be as organized as you can

- I am okay with speed, as long as you speak clearly

- Make sure to weigh, and write the ballot for me

- 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. 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.

- Overall, don't be offensive or rude to your opponent. We are all responsible for making debate educational and safe for everyone involved, so just be a decent person!

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 LD, happy to judge!

Email: austinloui@gmail.com

Phone Number (If I'm Running late): (310)-421-6805

Speed

I'm fine with spreading, go as fast as you'd like, though during blocks and tags enunciate your words a little more, as long as it's clear I'm chilling.

General Judging Notes

Tech > Truth

Please don't split the 2NR between two off-cases unless you have a good, strategic reason to (dropped DA, conceded T, etc.).

I'm fine Nebel T and Disclosure Theory as long as I can conclude your model is better for debate.

"Compiling the doc" is prep time, so is flex prep.

Unless your bladder is literally bursting, please don't leave the room in round.

Argument Preferences

I encourage whatever way you would like to debate. I think debaters show their best side when they're really in their element, picking the arguments they truly want to run. Don't let my preferences bog down your debating.

That being said, here are the argument types I can judge from worst to best:

Policy (DA's, CP's)

K's

T

Theory

Phil

Tricks

K

I'm good with some generic K's (cap, security) but if you're running one that you feel is more niche, or specific, (example: Hauntology) please take time to explain it.

Pik's are definitely a voting issue, if they go for a Pik and you mentioned they're a voter in the 1AR, extending Piks bad = aff win.

Other Notes

Speaks begin at 28.5, then move up or down from there.

Debate with passion, I love loud, agressive, passionate speakers.

Hi I'm Penelope! add me to the email chain or just use speechdrop: penelope.pressman@gmail.com

current LD at Marlborough (policy camp though)

Basics:

policy>k>phil>tricks

args that are offensive (racist, sexist homophobic etc) will get you an L with lowest possible speaks - same for clipping/ev ethics

nope not voting on tricks idc what it is

be nice, debate should be fun and educational

K:

-I'm okay for most generics, (cap, setcol etc) but explain your links contextually

-impact turns>>>

-probs a bad idea to just go for fw in front of me but if it's explained well, sure

CP/DA:

-yay!

-competition debates: even more yay! (but I usually don't think cps need to be textually and functionally competetive, until you convince me otherwise)

-if you want me to judgekick when a perm has been read you need to explain how that somehow does not nonuq the DA...

-solves better is probs not a nb

Theory:

-slow down on analytics - just because you think you said it does not magically make it appear on my flow

-I'm not going to promise to vote on a random dtd arg just because it's dropped, but it'll certainly give you a low bar to win

-the cheatier the consult cp the more likely I'll be to vote on theory against it, lean neg on condo but very much depends on the round (that said, you need to explain why t and ks are not > condo)

-sure, read disclosure if there was an actual substantive violation of norms, not if there was a typo in their round report from last topic

-friv theory is an uphill battle for you

T:

-I love good T debates, lots of lbl pls and yes fairness is important

-nebel is going to be harder but please just prove to me you actually know what it means and I will want to vote for you

-RVIs mostly do not exist

-yay T fw against K affs

Phil:

EPISTEMIC MODESTY.

Hi I'm Brian Son (he/him)

Background

Current circuit LD debater for Peninsula High for 2 Years.

Coached/Influenced by Gordon Krauss, Jared Burke, Joey Antonelli, Anish Ramireddy, and Adam Mimou but Gordon especially so my philosophy will likely reflect his.

TLDR

I'm probably judging novices so go for what you want, I think debate is a competitive activity that more people should get into. Add me for the email chain at brianson437@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Don't worry I can and will flow which is how I decide my RFD and THEN I go to the doc if there was specific evidence referenced.

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. If you don't understand why you lost then it's easy to lose again.

General Judge Phil

Hot take - I think general clash is good ????. Responding to your opponents cards is better. And responding to your opponents specific warrants is the best ????. Of course, extend your own warrants on why you're ahead and why they aren't. An ideal debate would not force me to do the work for you but for you guys to tell me what to do. That does NOT MEAN to repeat things already stated or to give long winded overviews which are bad for time allocation (I have a brain trust?). Specifically, why you're ahead, why it outweighs/turns, and answers to any defense/turns in either the 1AR or 2NR. I'm good for big stick impacts like climate change, nuke war, or disease but would incline to vote on smaller impacts IF there's warrants on FW why extinction level risk is bad and we ought to prioritize some small left impact.

I don't vote for presumption because there's always a way to check the probability of an impact.

Flex prep is fine but both debaters need to agree

Sending the doc isn't prep but compiling is. If it takes too long I might look behind to see if there's an actual issue or the 1NC was too good and your frantically prepping out a 1AR doc.

Use the bathroom before round so that no one steals prep time.

Spreading

Yeah go ahead. If you do spread my standard would be being able to understand what you're saying without a doc to interpret the words. If for some reason you don't have a doc or just hate me then be very clear on signposting or else warrants are on different flows.

Speaks

As someone who gets walked over in elim rounds I probably care more about speaks than other judges regardless of judging novice division. That being said I start at 28.5 and go up and down based on clarity, strategy (winning on an RVI or tricks will put your score lower and line by line increases it), and being persuasive (only matters if you sound unsure of yourself).

CP/PIC

I love CPs and PICs, I believe that they are necessary to test the plan and why it is key to the advantage. That said I default to judge kick and sufficiency framing for the neg. 2AR tends to get messy so concentrate on 1 maybe 2 arguments like a perm do both or a straight turn with warrants why it doesn't solve. I actually think condo is legit because it's not saying CPs are bad but being able to be kicking out of it without answering straight turns or conceding defense like normal DAs makes sense. Even though I think condo is legit it definitely needs more warrants in the 1AR if I would vote for it.

K/Aff

Lets be fr you guys as novices shouldn't be running Ks but if so don't assume I know the literature. That said I have debated and ran lots of different K Affs and Ks before. If for some reason there's a K aff/k in a novice debate? uhhhh I'm sympathetic to TFW and fairness as the highest priority. For K's explain the link well enough to repeat back and what your alt actually does especially in cx.

Theory/T

Disclosure is good. I think even traditional schools can/should use the opencaselist to put in their contact info and round reports so that other schools can research to prep for the tournament. If your opponent doesn't disclose then show a screenshot in the doc for evidence.

Limits are legit for T BUT if you read T then explain exactly what generics you loose on. If the plan has an intent to exclude certain DA's then I'm more sympathetic but if it's more common in the topic then less so.

Things I will likely/never vote on

My opponent did X outside the debate (not disclosure)

Spreading Bad (I'm sorry trad debaters)

RVIs

Tricks (are for kids)

firepowerx2@gmail.com

debate(d) for peninsula, qualified to toc, got a few bids may get some more

most of these are just "I debate(d) for so-and-so, I was good." "I agree with my coach on everything" - got the first part out of the way, now onto the second part. My general opinions about this activity (mostly) tend to come from Gordon Krauss, Jared Burke or Rayeed Rahman

I doubt it's relevant in the debates I will be judging,but I also appreciate critical academic literature, I have familiarity with the typical LD philosophy frameworks, and default to thinking of framework as an impact filter for how the round should be adjudicated.

things that will help you get the ballot:

--please be respectful to me and your opponent. there's no need to do things like make fun of the way someone speaks, or make personal attacks when we're all taking time out of our day to be here for an activity we all enjoy.

--engage your opponent's arguments in the order they were made, that way it's easier for me to

--put reasons why YOU should win (offense) before answering the reasons they say for why THEY should win. (defense)

--evidence is good, but that doesn't mean its all that matters. you're all smart, and if you think a card is bad, you can make that argument without another one to say that. good arguments can beat bad cards!

most of all, please try to have fun. debate is more then winning and losing (even if that is a big part of it)

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

debate at peninsula

coached/helped by gordon, julian, scott, dosches, tdi people

Time urself and ur opponent

General

Run any argument you want (except very not familiar with trick)

1 - policy

2 - K

3 - theory

4 - K aff

5 - trick/phil

not the perfect judge, pls have clear judge instruction

speed fine, slow down on analytic

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to win

default to ac fw or util unless otherwise

dropped argument only true if explain how it interact with debate

Speech Point

Clarity, good organization, Polite = High speaker point

aggressive and fast don't mean high speaker point

Don't be rude in cx

You not suppose to ask your opponent did you read this or what argument did you answer other then ac/nc... YOUR SUPPOSE TO FLOW

DA

less off with better link and longer card > 8 off

impact clac more then just prewritten block, be comparative, also impact clac the link vs link turn

timeframe important as it means your impact happen before other and turn

tell me what argument they didn't answer or didn't answer well that WHY that important and affect the debate

I love seeing argument about evidence comparison and what the card actually say.

Counterplan

defensive argument to solve aff and avoid da

condo might be drop debater when more then 1, anything else most likely drop argument only

I think perm most important

Kritik/Phil

I default to weighing the case, comparative world

l feel link and alt should be most important part

I think T should be read against K aff, all the other "argument" just too hard to win. Impact should be fairness

I never rlly run it myself, so there is that

Topictality

I feel interps is the most important part, caselist also important

both fairness and education important persuade me

not going to vote for rvi

Theory

in round abuse only, I might judge intervene depend on how stupid it is (ex: snoring theory auto ignore)

I think dislcousre theory is a real theory, personally I always send my 1ac file as soon as paring come out even if it 2 hour beore round. I think clash is never a bad thing.

Funny argument that stupid--------------------X real argument

sped everything----------------X----Slow down for tag

just debating-X-------------------trying to talk to judge to make them like you at lay tournament