Hi! I'm Violet (she/her).

I am in my fourth year of varsity LD at Marlborough School. My preferences and perspectives probably align with those of most other Marlborough debaters and coaches.

Please disclose, & please include me in that disclosure (violetaffleck24@marlborough.org).

I care deeply about the educational mission of debate. To that end, I think your arguments should be as close to true as possible. I don't think it's impossible for any given policy to result in nuclear war, but I am an excellent judge for any weighing argument that requires a high burden of proof for intuitively improbable link chains. (A card saying "it would be bad if I spontaneously combusted" is not the same as a card saying "I am going to spontaneously combust"). Poverty/inequality, conventional conflict, and climate change are high-magnitude impacts. I am impressed by line-by-line & CX questions specific to your opponents' evidence.

I am fine with speed, but please slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc (particularly in rebuttals).

I can handle phil but prefer policy/K arguments. (However, I will actively look for reasons to vote against you if you read critical literature cynically -- this applies especially to any pessimism arguments and 10000x if you don't share the identity you're reading pess about). Don't read tricks.

I am not here to tell you what to do with your body. Feel free to sit, stand, get water, use the restroom, or debate while lying on the floor -- the world is your oyster.

*Woodward Update*

After 3 years of dedication to my KN95, I am familiar with the challenges of speaking in a mask & will not dock speaker points for any related difficulties; if you would like a mask at any point, I almost certainly have one in my backpack.

I am a parent judge.

This is my first year of being a judge.

Important: please state your speech time and roadmap at the beginning of each speech.

Please speak in an appropriate volume and a reasonable pace. Please also use simple English and don't use any inappropriate language. There is no reason to be mean as we are all learning from each other.

I evaluate rounds based on the contents of the arguments, not as much the way they are presented. Please present your arguments clearly to me so I can understand easily.

Have fun!

Heyyyyy,

I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general), sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.

Please add my email to the chain: jaysynteacher20@gmail.com

Judging style:

I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. Primarily a discursive activity, I want to know the importance of theorizing and discussing specific ideas within the space. I am very Truth over Tech and my RFDs will center logic and reason over the technical aspects of the debate (unless the technical is very glaring within the round). I am extremely receptive to historical and sociological theory and use these things to understand arguments.

Things I find helpful within debates: what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other?

K AFFs:Your theory should be the foundation and the background of ALL of your explanations within the debate. You should be using the vocabulary of your 1AC throughout every flow. Please refrain from using buzzwords with no explanation. I like High Theory but don't assume I walk into the room knowing the specifics of your arguments. I expect K Affs to be able to adequately answer generic K's and FW.

Policy AFFs: Because I am Truth over Tech I would like to see y'all interact with such truths. For instance, if your opponents read Set Col and the 2AC extends the Russia/China advantages with generic extinction impacts, this will not move me. I would be impressed to hear how the specifics of your plan affect various indigenous groups or the project of settler colonialism in general. In essence, I would like particular interaction with the details of your opponent's arguments rather than proceed forward with "everyone dies under extinction, and this overwhelms the links"

Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.

I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.

I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.

Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.

If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!

Jaysyn Green (she/her)

Beach Forensics

I debated Policy for 6 years (2014-2020), so I’m pretty much fine with anything. Also did some PF and LD. I’ve also been out of debate for a few years though and have little topic knowledge. Don’t be offensive. I mostly read topical affs and was predominantly policy debater on the neg. I am fine and familiar with Kritiks, but it wasn’t my go to 2NR strategy. I love T debate and theory, but that very much does not mean RVIs or tricks, which I will generally not vote on.

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, not before.

Add me to the Email Chain: beh2024@stanford.edu

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

for disclosure rohankrishna0719@gmail.com

run whatever you want. I don't like spreading so be reasonable with speed. Don't have to go super slow.

Framework is really important. Weigh and Give me clear voters.

Please add me to the email chain: CameronLange@gmail.com

I was a LARP-y national circuit LD debater at Marlborough from 2016-2020.

• I have not debated or regularly listened to spreading since before the pandemic, so please don't read at top speed. This is especially true if your speed trades off with your clarity. I can't consider arguments I didn't hear, even if they’re sooo good.
• Similarly, I don't vote on arguments I don't understand. If I can't articulate what your alt is/does in my RFD, I won't vote on it.
• I am biased against tricks, silly plan flaw arguments, frivolous theory, etc. and will look for reasons not to vote on them.
• I will give you low speaker points if you are rude to your opponent. Be kind to one another! :')

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

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.

hey! i'm wyeth :) marlborough 2024 | harvard 2028

about me: she/her, debated ld four years, qualified to toc 3 times, 22 bids, won berkeley + st marks, carried around a ton of bagels

yes to the email chain: wzrenwick [@] icloud.com

novices and jv: have fun, be kind, and make mistakes! no need to read the rest of this paradigm - i'm here to help you get better, so don't stress <3

how to win debates in front of me:

a) i love debate, i think the research process is valuable, so i get excited when i see two people who are also excited engage in an activity we all enjoy. have fun, and warrant your arguments :)

b) i am not good at flowing!!! spreading is fine, and i pay attention, but if you are so unclear or so fast that i miss the arg you stake the debate on, i am comfortable with that being my rfd. sending 1nc/1ar analytics is a good practice, and one that i have always engaged in. if your strategy relies upon hiding arguments or getting your opponents to drop things, you should not pref me, and instead work on getting confident enough to engage in clash (i write this with all the love in the world).

c) racism, sexism, ableism, all the -isms are a no go. especially as a female debater coming from a girls' school, i am wary of debate's bro culture, and intentionally being kind to your opponent will earn you speaks. not doing so will lower them.

d) depth >>> breadth. more warrants >>>>>>> more arguments.

e) my argument preferences -

larp: 1 (2nr on the econ da has always been my favorite 2nr to give. condo is probably good, da + cp >>>>>>>>>>> process cp, and explanation, explanation, explanation is the name of the game)

k: 3, maybeee 2 (i ran some - emphasis on some - fem/cap k's/k affs that were all topic specific, but a lot of ppl laugh when i say i'm flex, so. i lean neg on fw, clash >>> fairness, and don't-weigh-case is probably hard to win in front of me. if you're going to run a k, i expect lbl, aff-specific links, and engagement beyond blocks) (also, y'all should look into postwork. seriously underrated)

phil: 5, maybe a strike (i will hate it and that will probably show up in your speaks. you won't be getting the benefit of the doubt from me, so you better be confident that you're really good at explaining why your fw doesn't collapse to util. epistemic modesty >>>>)

tricks, friv theory, disclosure games, hiding aspec, etc: strike me. fr. if torson or theis would be disappointed in me for voting on it, i will not be voting for it.

f) if you're debating a novice/trad debater, making the debate more accessible will boosts speaks. spreading is fine, but not going your top speed, sending analytics, running disads instead of eighty-two-plank process cp's or k's will all make me like you more. if you're gonna win the debate anyways, winning it kindly is always a good practice.

speaker points:

28 - 28.4: you're learning! that's a good thing - you'll get good feedback :)

28.5 - 28.9: you're a solid 3-3, maybe even 4-2 - very cool!

29 - 29.4: you're probably breaking - congrats!

29.5+: you're one of the best debaters at the tournament

most importantly:

have fun, debate well! this is your metaphorical pre-round fist bump :)

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

My Debate Preferences:

• Spreading is OK only if all points are enunciated clearly.
• Arguments over technicalities.
• Stay on topic.
• OK to be competitive but always be respectful.

Parent judge so go slow. Please state your framework clearly.

Hey ! I am a high schooler with 4 years of debate experience:

email: diyayadav756@gmail.com (always add me to the email chain)

General:

Timing:

• there is a positive chance that I am timing as well so please maintain your time properly
• if you can time your opponent's speeches too because its hella smart to do
• I believe in a 15 second grace period but if you go over that i will drop speaks

Speed:

• i am more of a lay debater so i prefer a fast pace but not spreading
• if you do spread i will not mark speaks off but if you don't send a speech doc then yes
• if spreading and you are not clear i will shout out clear so just be mindful of that
• be clear and make sure that you can persuade a person just by your speaking skillz

Organization:

• off-time road maps are funsies !
• PLEASE SIGN POST i will be so confused if you don't tell me where you are on the flow
• i am always flowing so take that how you please

Clash:

• clash is amazing
• please have clash it makes the debate so much more fun to judge

Weighing:

• please weigh i will consider it in my decision
• Voter issues are highly recommended ! I love voter issues
• impact weighing is a must like explain to me why i should vote for you and why your impacts are higher than your opponent's :)

Cross Ex:

• i do not flow cross ex
• if something did come up in cross ex then please mention it in ur next speech

Please be respectful to me and your opponent because if your not then i will not be a happy person, it will result in lower speaks and if you are extremely disrespectful it will result to a loss :).

LD:

I am a tech over truth kinda gal so take that into consideration

• this is my main event so I love judging and debating
• no new arguments in the 2AR or 2NR i will know and I will not flow at all
• plans: I am fine with it but not a big fan. If you know how to defend it properly i will consider it but if not then its not a good time for you
• Ks: i do not like them personally :) ive slowly been getting into circuit debate so I understand them so I will not vote against them
• NO TRICKS PLEASE
• Weigh ur arguments please !! they help me evaluate the round and if you dont then ill be a tad bit confused on ur impacts
• Framework: I LOVE framework debate its my favorite, but if it gets out of hand then i will stop flowing if it gets too much. Make sure that it aligns with your case pls or else imma be sad.
• CLASHINNNNGG
• impact debate is important
• if both you and ur opponent drop arguments and neither of you notice i wont care and I will drop them too (it will not be in my ballot but just as a tip make sure to respond to everything !)

Please make this debate fun,

im fine with funny examples or like tv show examples because I will probably understand it.

Just enjoy it and legit the round doesnt have to be all serious cuz im not even a serious person :)