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

senior at marlborough, been in LD since 2019. almost everything on here agrees with Adam Torson,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! thank you

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 interp" is not enough -- but slow down when doing so.

disclosure is always a good thing; however, disclosure interps get so out of hand. don't play disclosure games...

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 <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 critical 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.

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 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. My sole role as a judge is to either vote AFF or NEG. 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

Overall

Tech >>>>Truth

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

Presumption is fine to go for but I need a reason why I should ultimately cast my ballot for your side.

Reasonability makes sense for theory arguments.

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.

Dropped arguments only have the power behind the warrants behind them. You can't just assert the sky is red without having a scientist that explains why.

You don't have to win UQ to win a link turn. I think that any reason why the plan would mitigate or cause some risk of the SQUO being better or worse is a reason why I should prevent that.

In Round Phil

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

Don't lie in CX, cheat during prep, and being dishonest during the round.

Sending the doc isn't prep but compiling is.

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 spreadmy 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 then be very clear on signposting or else warrants are on different flows.

Speaks

Speaks matter and I take them seriously. I base them on how well you physically speak (tone, volume, etc), CX answers/questions, and the quality of the line-by-line.

The words you speak matter more to me than how you speak. I would rather see debaters use their flow paper in the final speeches and sound less good than debaters who only read off their laptops without thinking while sounding colorful.

If I think you'll have a positive record expect anything above 29.0+

For debaters versing novices who might've dropped something, if you use only your paper, use less prep, and sit down when you've already extended what you needed to win, I'll take it as a reason to boost speaks.

CP/PICs

I default to judge kick and sufficiency framing for the NEG.

Condo is good and multi-plank CPs don't make conditionality any worse.

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.

K/KAff

Ks and K-AFFs belong in debate and are real arguments.

I'm more favorable toward letting the AFF weigh the case against the K.

I'm a huge fan of having specific lines in the 1AC as links for the K instead of vague links like "engagement with the state".

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 don't get out of weighing just like every other debate. Proving why your link matters more than the 1AC impact is key for the ballot.

TFW is a procedural that tells debaters to defend the plan, not that they can't read the literature.

I usually am persuaded by fairness as an impact. I think there's intrinsic reasons why fairness in itself is a good idea that we should uphold in the debate space.

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

Theory

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.

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.

Phil

A framework is a lens that I evaluate different arguments for when debaters weigh.

Epistemic modesty is logical.

Death is bad but I need reasons why we should or shouldn't be held responsible for preventing it.

Most familiar with Kant v Util debates but won't freak out with say, Hobbes.

Offense is key to win the ballot.

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 September '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

I’ve probably talked to Dalton Ngo, Aiden Kim and Niranjan Deshpande way too much about this activity.

CX -> LD -> CX -> LD -> CX (camp) -> LD (season)

Operating Procedure

Debate is cool. On paper in person. 60-40 for paper in online debates. Indifferent to email chains.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Respect is good. So is answering arguments in the order they were made. How do you win? It’s your job to tell me!

LD, for Chuck Ballingal 2024

Still doing this! 'Topic' research has so far been focused around critical and philosophical cases which means I require explanations of concepts like 'wage price spiral' or 'elite capture' in the rebuttal speeches. The Inflation DA is immensely boring but do what you have to to get the ballot.

Offense-Defense. Give me reasons to vote for you while answering their reasons to vote for them.

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

Do anything you want. While I like High Theory Ks and Framework debates, novice and middle school divisions may not be the best place to deploy these arguments, though that's not to say that I bring that predisposition to the round. I think I am pretty well read on various subjects in both debate application and general knowledge.

The 1AR should read cards. The 2NR should not. If you feel like you shouldn't, you probably shouldn't. "LD Debate should stay LD debate!" or so a bunch of people have added to their judge philosophies recently. I wonder why.

If you make a joke about Alex Borgas, Shawn Lo, Dalton Ngo, Brian Son, Esther Goldman, William Liu, Abby Merges, Penny Stoller, Leah Fischer, Ethan Yang or Edward Min the speaker points may be higher than they otherwise might.

Policy 2024-25

Background. Debated this topic for 4 weeks at camp. Cut an Aff in lab. Familiar with topic jargon and many core affirmative and negative positions. Full disclosure: I pretty much exclusively read the K, in various high theory/post-colonial flares. Usually, 2 off… Ban Patents and the K.

Second constructive should read cards.

Topicality is difficult on this topic to communicate effectively or understand, especially in novice debates. Especially on such a legally oriented topic. If you can convincingly communicate your position, go for it. Please don’t use topicality arguments to exclude less-experienced debaters.

Still think 2NRs should get to case (or explain why they don’t get it), 2Ars should get to the disadvantage. Reiterating your points is fine, but it’s less helpful amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Condo: “Dispositionality is the best thing since sliced bread” -Johnnie Stupek.

For real though, while condo isn’t great the topic is pretty terrible for the NEG in terms of germane DAs to the plan.

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.

1AR cards. You should read them but shouldn’t need that much. Despite doing this event again recently, and thinking about this matter at length (as 1A) I still don’t get why people think the 1AR should spam twenty cards. I think less evidence, more analysis avoids 2AR newness which loses the Aff the ballot.

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), and also do the impact clac on internal link level.

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 don't call me by my real name pls it feel weird