hi! I'm gabi (she/her). add me to the email chain: gabrielaadler25@marlborough.org

Marlborough debate - LD since 2019/20ish. Almost everything on here agrees with Adam Torson,Cameron Lange, Clare Bradley and Chris Theis.

TLDR: I evaluate off the flow. I’m good for well known Ks and all policy positions. I do NOT flow tricks and cannot say im comfortable with pomo or anything like that. I will not vote for anything morally grody, ie. sexism, homophobia, racism etc. Will vote on evidence ethics.

General Info

policy>k>phil>tricks

weigh everything. probability can outweigh magnitude if you don't put in the work and explain the scenario to me.

extend more than just your impacts, i.e. warrants, link chains, etc.

PLEASE slow down on analytics. PLEASE.

T + Theory

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

PLEASE lbl the T debate, just saying "pref our intern" is not enough -- but slow down when doing so.

disclosure is always a good thing, however disclosure interps get so out of hand

condo and pics are generally good unless you convince me otherwise

K

I can handle basic Ks (cap, fem, setcol etc). for other Ks treat me like a toddler!

I love a nice link/impact debate - impact turn 2AR <3

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

lots of lbl, please !!!! don't docbot. and judge explanation is important as always.

CP

YAY! depending on the CP/Number of CPs my theory threshold can increase and decrease

no stance on judge kick, however I'd prefer if you didn't make me do it.

DA

UQ controls the link

impact calc!! thank you

Phil

NOT your girl! my rfd will reflect how confused i am in round. again, act as though i am a toddler. explain your offense (why is it uq, why does it exclude impacts, why is it good)

PF

i have been judging pf a lot and just wanted to say that judge instruction is especially important in pf debates for me! i am not super familiar with pf, and i need to be told how to vote or how to weigh. please sign post, most of the generic things on here should still apply!

Other

don't disclose speaks

debate is fun and should stay that way. be kind to everyone and i will be happy

intense c/x makes me very happy, but there is a difference between confident, perceptually dominant c/x and being rude

over all, have fun and be nice!! im very reactive so you'll be able to tell how i feel about certain args and positions as you read them.

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 LD, happy to judge.

Email: austinloui@gmail.com

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

General Judging Notes

I judge larp similarly to our lord and savior, Gordon Krauss, and k's similarly to his holy spirit, Jared Burke.

I encourage whatever way you would like to debate, that being said...

Arguments from best to worst:

K

Larp

T

Theory

Phil

Tricks(Please don't)

K

I like K debates.

Framework: Down to vote on whatever framework interp you go for (include or exclude the plan). Maybe leaning a bit more epistemology on the "plan only vs. exclude plan" debate, but am probably more persuaded by a "plan vs reps" interp.

Links: I like topic specific links (EX: Offshore balancing critiques) but also am pretty familiar and respect good IR or security links (i.e. realism or revisionism links). Have turns case for you links, and often, usually extend only one link and go extremely deep.

Alt: Explain your alt thoroughly, a lot of K rounds boil down to not explaining the alt and how it solves. Unless you're exceptionally heavy on framework, talk about the alt as much as you can. If you explain your alt well I'm exponentially more likely to vote on alt solves case.

Specific Topic Lit(s):Very familiar with theories of settler colonialism. Have an adequate understanding of militarism, feminism, cap, marxism, psychoanalysis (specifically Lacan), and basic IR. Unfamiliar with most disability K's and more specific areas of Afropess besides Wilderson. Post-structuralism gets confusing so I would love a good explanation in round.

Larp

Adv & DA's: Impact calc at the top is preffered. Usually timeframe first but I've run a lot of soft left aff's so I'm probably going to be more persuaded by good probability first weighing than others.

Extinction First:Even if you win extinction outweighs, make sure your own impact reaches that threshold (specifically skeptical of disease and 'keystone species' impacts). Genuinely don't think extinction first is true when compared to soft left framing (ex: Gloor 19 suffering first or Riley Rees' longtermism = eugenics card). Very willing to vote on calc indicts of extinction first in the context of soft left framing.

Counterplans: Default to suffiency framing. Default to judge kick unless uncondo. Persuaded that CP specific voting issues (PIC's, Multi-actor, Multi-plank, solvency advocate etc.) are a reason to drop the argument. For condo, don't make your counterinterp "we can have x number of condo" because I'll pull the trigger on arbitrariness.

T

Debate predictability or debatibility.

Limits usually outweigh. Skeptical of ground, don't think the neg has a god given right to things like the deterrence or assurance DA. Most justifications for ground are very sketchy. PTIV is more coherent than most alternatives, but cross ex is still binding, and can be used to garner T violations (maybe thats the best interp?).

Other Notes

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

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.

Disclosure: I'm fine with disclosure, especially if its egregious.

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, but I kinda like speechdrop more (faster).

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 + lowest possible speaks, same for clipping/ev ethics if your opp stakes the round on it

nope not voting on tricks.

I probs won't vote on things I can't explain back to you

debate should be fun and educational -- don't be mean

"if torson or theis would be disappointed in me for voting on it, i will not be voting for it." - Wyeth

K:

-I'm okay for most generics, (cap, setcol, fem etc) but explain your links pls and make them contextual to the aff

-it would be really really great if you can explain why your alt actually solves

-I mostly went for t-fw against k affs, so

CP/DA:

-yay!

-competition debates :) but good luck going for "but their cp isn't functionally and textually competetive!" as dtd

-tell me if you want me to judgekick

-solves better is probs not a nb

other 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

-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

T:

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

-RVIs mostly do not exist

Phil:

EPISTEMIC MODESTY.

Hi I'm Brian Son (he/him/any)

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 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

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.

Because of the fast rounds I give oral RFDs so as novices, please take notes or write down why you won/lost.

For any advice please refer to Devin Lai's paradigm

Judge Phil

Tech >>>>Truth

I default to

Util FW

Condo Good

No RVIs

Judge Kick Counterplans

T "up-layers" 1AR Theory

CPs only need to be functionally competitive

I’m not a believer in 0 risk because there's always a way to check the probability of an impact unless it's an elections DA from 2016 (you won't believe who won).

Debate is offense - defense; whichever argument I find to have the most risk at the end of the round will win.

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. Basically, just make it clear what I'm voting on.

In Round Phil

Flex prep is fine but both debaters need to agree beforehand.

Debaters shouldn't lie or be dishonest (ex. if someone asks the status of a CP and you say the status quo is a logical option and they are confused you should clarify it's condo).

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.

I've seen messy debates before and I'm willing to intervene if there's harassment. I believe there's a difference between insulting the speech (ex. the 1AR was incoherent on x) and insulting/harassing the debater themselves.

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

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/PICs

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.

CPs are defensive arguments, they should always be paired with a net benefit that gives them offense against a "zeroed" out AFF.

It's the negs burden to prove that the CP solves the case and why any risk of a solvency deficit is outweighed by a risk of the net benefit.

If you're AFF against a process CP, please go for either theory or perm do CP in the 2AR. I see debaters who ignore the competition side of these debates when I think they're easy to win for the AFF. As long as you prove that there's a single instance where the resolution could involve the CP mechanism, then that's enough for me to see the process CP as illegitimate.

K/KAff

I think critiques belong in debate and find the literature interesting. That said the 2NR should be able to explain their thesis without expecting me to have read their literature.

I'm more favorable towards letting the aff weigh the case against the k and TFW for "abusive" affs.

I'm a huge fan of having specific lines in the 1AC as links for the K.

Alts are usually stupid and probably fail. I'm not sure why having a new perspective would solve your scholarship found from the depths of reddit.

2NRs should weigh the K against the case and provide a specific impact for why the affs epistemology is really bad.

Performance affs are fun to watch but hard to judge. I wouldn't recommend it if you want to win.

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 lose 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.

Although I do think counter-interpretations are a good method of being objective, I do think reasonability is a legit standard because it's a question of if the AFF is topical or not which means that if I feel that the AFF has upheld their burden of being topical enough then it makes sense to vote AFF. Then again, I wouldn't see why voting NEG for a better interpretation is bad besides substance crowd out.

The more stupid the theory shell the lower bar I require for the rebuttal like counter-solvency-advocate theory shouldn’t take too long to answer.

I'm NEG leaning on PICs and condo but more AFF leaning on process CPs bad or international fiat bad (basically the more abusive the NEG is the more convincing AFF theory is).

While PICs and process counterplans are more abusive that condo, I still view them as legitimate arguments granted you can convince me that your model of debate is better.

Things I will likely not vote on

My opponent did X outside the debate (not disclosure) - I'm a debate judge, not a principal

Spreading Bad - I think it's arbitrary and doesn't answer the real complaint most traditional people have which is clarity.

RVIs - You don't win by being fair.

Tricks - Unless fully warranted, I hate voting for arguments that are meant to be misunderstood or dropped.

Evaluate after X speech - I'll ignore this because it goes against the NSDA rules itself.

Update MSTOC '24

firepowerx2@gmail.com

"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:

I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.

"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke

CX, then LD, then CX then LD.

My history in this activity is just Lay -> Phil -> K -> Theory -> Kant/Critical Combo -> LARP with varying degrees of success.

Operating Procedure

I like debate. Here because I want to be here. Will give your speeches full attention. Taken from Pat's paradigm, "That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster"

Definitely on paper in person, 60-40 towards paper for online debate. Indifferent to being on the chain.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Respect. It's good. But so is answering arguments in the order they were made. Tell me why you win.

Policy 2023-24

Background. Cut lots of cards for this, I know a lot of the core affirmative and negative positions on the topic. I didn't debate this topic as much as I wanted to due to circumstances beyond my control, but I'm confident in my adjudication ability as I've spent many weekends thinking about it.I worked with some younger debaters to various degrees / did pre-round prep / cut cards / drills. These kids ran Poly-Crisis and Degrowth.

Econ, Politics, and Elections need updated uniqueness evidence - reading cards from last yar when your opponent has one from last week puts you in a difficult spot.

Second constructive should leverage positions in your first. Sandbagging is terrible. You should present your best version of your argument as soon as possible. I don't understand why you need eight "econ high now" or "biden wins now" cards in the 1NR but you do you.

I dislike novice T debates because no one does any weighing or line by line at all. If this isn't you, this is a challenge to change my mind. I dare you, and if you succeed in this endeavor you will receive no less than a 29.1. Please don't use topicality or theory to exclude less experienced debaters.

2NRs should get to the case and 2ARs should get to the disadvantage -reiterating your points means nothing amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Condo prob not that good but not that bad.

If you're reading like > 5 off case positions in novice consider why and how this will help you or your opponents learn... but also they have eight minutes to answer it so tough luck for them I guess? If this paradigm says anything it's that I prefer depth.

LD

I do/did this. Topic familiarity high.

Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"

Do anything

Phil/LARP > K > T/Th >> Substantive Tricks >>>>> Theoretical Tricks

Theory prob DTD. Make reasonability offense.

I'm the only person associated with my school in many, many years who gives a damn about philosophical arguments. Like, I read these. I also read the books they're cut from, and I think they're an integral yet unfortunately fading part of this activity. Cards are cool but like you don't need them. I really don't get the obsession with "I have a card and you don't" - like we're all smart people who can justify things...

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

debate at peninsula LD for three years

I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice ld is essential, I debate at the national circuit and have familiarity with all the progressive arguments that novice will run. I think the most important thing is remembering line by line argument your opponent made and not drop anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc).

I find in many cases debater just respond to the opponent argument by simply rephrasing what their case and evidence is without any interaction (or card and evidence just completely get forgotten and 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 answer it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you read can be very helpful.

Finally please be respectful and have fun. I can and will end the round if anything inappropriate/mean/hurtful behavior happens. Debate should be logos and not ethos, I don't decide the winner of the debate by who's a better speaker or sounds smarter in cx. Feel free to ask me any question after the debate even if you think my opinion is wrong, listening to feedback is how you learn greatly.

List of thing I would really like to hear from a novice round:

• impact calc on the internal link level
• impact calc overall and specially why timeframe, possibility, or magnitude (which ever your going for) is MOST important compared to the other, and don't just talk about your impact compare it with your opponents
• case turn da or da turn case
• a good organized flow with different position on different sheet (show me at the end of round and I will boost your speaker point)
• Give me an order before speech
• going for cp correctly
• kicking out stuff when you need to and not just going for everything in your last speech
• pls just call me judge not my real name pls it feel weird

if you want to see a funny photo look at Aaron Yi paradigm

OLD STUFF:

General

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

speed fine, slow down on analytic

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to win

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 and pls don’t forget fw debate

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.

random stuff for fun

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