Tabroom.com

Marlborough 1

2024 — Los Angeles, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Marina Alan Hire 4 rounds

Naomi Alan Hire 4 rounds

Vibha Arsid Gretchen A. Whitney High School 4 rounds

Joseph Barquin Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 1:47 PM PST

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evidence sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Rory Baskin Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 1:36 PM PST

hi! i'm rory - she/her - marlborough '27 - ld 2021-present

carolinebaskin27@marlborough.org / speechdrop

general

policy > k > phil > tricks

tech > truth

speaks start at 28.5

be respectful and ethical - no racism, sexism, homophobia, cheating, etc. or you will get an L with the lowest speaks

i’m fine with speed and topic jargon (ld / policy), but please be clear and intentional with what you definitely want me to get down

weigh! explain your weighing beyond the time frame / magnitude / probability buzzwords. i won't necessarily default to the most tenuous risk of a high-magnitude impact, and i'm actually way more sympathetic to structural impacts > extinction than most judges if you debate them right

counterplan / disad

great, but don't waste time in the nc on anything you can't go for in the nr. please don't docbot

counterplans should be functionally competitive, i don’t care about textual and i really can't judge a competition debate

judgekick if you tell me to

lean neg on pics and condo, aff on process and consult

theory / t

not my favorite kind of debate to have or judge, but almost everything depends on the round

be sure to slow down, impact out your standards and do lbl - walk me through what i’m voting on

no rvis, no friv theory. unlikely to vote on disclosure or hidden shells like aspec

insert rehighlightings is probably bad if it’s more than a couple, but i need to be told that in round

i’ve read and am comfortable with cap, security, set col, and fem - for anything else, assume that i’m unfamiliar with the lit

k affs should have a link to the topic, ks should have a link to the specific aff

explain the alt and how it solves the links. kicking the alt nuqs the k

not the best for a k v k debate other than cap vs. non-t affs

phil

deeply interested, hopelessly incompetent

default to util. okay for kant. overexplain for anything else

feel free to ask or email me questions before or after round!

have fun, keep debate a kind and educational space

Aadi Bhagat ModernBrain 4 rounds

Xavier Burchfield ModernBrain 4 rounds

Lesly De Anda Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 6:13 AM PST

Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: leslydeanda8@gmail.com

Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for the Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) as a Policy Debater! I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate transferring to UC Riverside graduated in 2023. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching if you ever need any help please go ahead and email me any questions after round I would love to help! I am a Policy Coach - @ STEAM LEGACY HS and a affiliate/alumni for LAMDL. I judge Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Public Forum.

** I currently travel with my husband, he will be with me in person rounds due to me/ myself having been in a High-Risk Pregnancy from a previous spine surgery I had and currently in recovery. Please don’t mind him he’ll be in the background he knows nothing about debate so he has no influence in my decision. ***

Receiving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone or being snubbed. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.

Receiving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room I will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.

If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. I get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educational space and should also make you feel safe. Be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.

Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.

CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructive or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.

Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.

Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand. After every RFD I pretty much tell everyone that they need to flow, you can drop so many args if you don't flow.

Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality. Love the uniqueness of K aff's show me what you created !!!!

Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.

K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.

(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.

Elle Dershewitz Marlborough School 4 rounds

Jack Erikson ModernBrain 4 rounds

Leah Fischer Marlborough School 4 rounds

Jason Huang ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 10:39 AM PST

大家好，我是Jason Huang

"Debate" - William Li -Justin Ding - Lucas Cao

he/him

I debate for Modernbrain in LD. I think I have a good understanding of the topics throughout the year but there's always more to learn!

Email>>>Speechdrop:jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

I wish I debated like Noah Christiansen, knew everything like Scott Wheeler, inspired people like Elmer Yang, as nice asLizzie Su, and chill like Alex Borgas.

TLDR: Spreading is fine, tech>truth, I'll vote on anything that has claim, warrant, and impact (bar the -isms).

For policy:

Everything below applies. I've never debated policy but I watched a lot and will treat it like a long LD round.

Things you might care about

Please call me Jason

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults: No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, PnP negates, theory is highest layer

If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then L25 for your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you :).

CX is binding, flex prep is fine

Substance is evaluated probabilistically, theory is a yes/no question. No 100% or 0% risk.

Don't steal prep, you can stop prep to send the email

Use CX for what it's for

It'd be great if the chain was set up before the round starts

Top

Debate is about the arguments within the rounds and their interactions, so I will do my best to not intervene.

I also think debate should be a space where both sides gets the most education and best experience out of. So feel free to read arguments that you feel most comfortable defending instead of stealing cases off the wiki or pulling up obscure positions from backfiles that you don't understand. Be yourself instead of tailoring the debate towards me.

That being said, I extremely dislike clash avoidance arguments. Though we always joke about hiding aspec or winning on hidden eval after the 1ac, but let's be real---these arguments are not designed for clash but to be a cheap-shot and an easy route to a ballot. These kinds of debates are not fun to judge because there isn't much "debating" going on. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Argument Prefs

I don't have an explicit bias toward certain arguments(except the kind listed above), so run whatever you want as long as it's not morally repugnant(racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, et cetera).

1-K/K-affs/Fwk

2-Policy

3-Theory/other T/Phil

Strike-trix

Counterplans

Counterplan debates are fun, especially when they have specific solvency advocates and germane net-benefits.

I lean condo good on most condo debates(unless dropped) because the number of offs really doesn't matter. The 1NC reading 12 offs would have worse quality positions than one that reads only 3 or 4 because they are also constrained by time, and bad arguments are easy to answer with smart analytics and rehighlightings. A really good condo 2AR would be how the negative read an super abusive combination of positions that made engagement technically impossible.

You tell me why a counterplan is cheaty

I won't kick a counterplan unless you tell me to, it'll be better if you gave me some kind of warrant just so the 2AR doesn't destroy the one-liner.

Disadvantages

"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott

Give me a clear link story and why it turns/outweighs the case and you'll be good.

For politics, link controls uniqueness. If there's a new uniqueness card coming out every 2 hours, then I'm 100% convinced that not a single person on the planet knows who's winning.

Kritiks

"Link work not framework, K debating is case debating."---Scott

My favorite type of debate, and the one I spend most time reading and researching. I mostly read the cap K. I don't hack for Ks.

I love when links indict every/most part of the affirmative. You're in a good spot if your 2NR revolves mostly along the link and implicates it to the aff. The stronger the link, the less burden on the alternative, and the less likely I will vote on the perm.

I don't like Ks that try to use frameworks and ROTBs to make the aff irrelevant because the debate is not "you don't do this, you lose." The K critiques the aff's ideological commitments, and the aff should defend those commitments.

Generally, I give K tricks less weight. Things like "fiat is illusory", D-rule, and root cause(except K v K) don't really matter to me. Things I would care about are alt solves case, floating PIK, or K-prior.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! I like specific links and link walls in the 1NC that are hyperspecific to the aff, it shows that the neg is doing its job in showing why this aff is specifically bad and not some generic card that is just slapped on.

Pre- and post-fiat is meaningless.

Judge kick is the same for the alternative

Plan affs

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah

Kritikal Affirmatives

I think K-affs are strategic and fun to judge when they: Explain why the ballot is key and what the aff does. There is functionally no difference between a plan-aff and a K-aff, both have impacts, solvency, inherency, and other stock issues, so explaining it as such would be very helpful and clean. I love listening to your theory and how your revolution would succeed but that's insufficient for why I should vote for you in this debate.

Framework

T debating is also case debating, especially for K-affs because the case itself is a massive DA to the traditional policy debate paradigm and the neg framework. Therefore, I think framework should interact with the case to some extent, if not completely.

Carded TVAs are best.

Phil

Calc indicts are not offense

Please err towards overexplaining things because I'm not extremely familiar with many lit other than util, kant, and hobbes.

Offense-defense. A clear abuse story is necessary for me to vote on T because most affs aren't EXTREMELY abusive to the point where clash is functionally impossible. If the aff is factual topical, I lean toward resonability.

Please impact out standards even if it's dropped, just like you would for a disadvantage.

Theory

Cross-apply the stuff from the T section.

I hold a very low bar for answering frivolous theory, especially ones that don't have a clear violation and impact. Reasonability should do the job if you give me decent warrant(s).

Speaker Points

Things I think boosts speaks:

-Smart strategic moves

-Non-obnoxious CX and zingers

-Non-offense humor

-Clean, packaged rebuttals

-Making an analytical K link to the aff and winning (auto 30)

Every Marx term/reference is +0.1 speaks(You get two at max if you're running an anti-cap argument)

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to.

Thoughts:

Debate is more than just the W/L and speaks on Tabroom. The best memories rarely happened in the round but always at the lunch table or on the plane. I love this space because it's educational, enriches the mind, and taught me to be a better person and thinker overall. So while competing with the person sitting across the room or next to you, you can also be friends and have fun while you're at it.

"Make no enemies."---Elmer

Favorite quotes:

"Theory debate is just D1 whining"---Elmer

"First comes no tie, then comes Bataille."---Scott

"We say perm do both for funsies!"---Noah

"The aff should lose because it's bad."---Lizzie

"Drop the argument is very goated."---Alex

"The answer to neg terrorism is aff counterterrorism."---Pat

Wenxi Jiang ModernBrain 4 rounds

Daena Kim Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 10:07 AM PST

Hi, I'm Daena! I'm a sophmore at Marlborough

please add me on the email chain: daenakim27@marlborough.org

TLDR: No tricks, I like policy v phil, speed is fine, have fun debate is a game its never that serious

tech > truth

Both sides should be flowing

I'm fine w any speed as long as you are clear, share your case doc, and also make sure to signpost and read all the cites. I will say clear if you are going too fast and I can't understand you, if I say that please be clearer

I'm good w flex and 5 minute prep if both debaters agree to it

use crossex strategically. don't use it as prep, if you don't have questions, end it and move onto the 1nc or 1ar. i like clash in cross but if you start getting offensive or it becomes a yelling match ill doc speaks off both sides

Please don't be offensive - I will dock speaks if you disrespect your opponent or say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you ever say a slur or try and verbally put down your opponent I'm giving the lowest speaks possible.

biggest debate influences : Adam Torson, Chris Theis, Clare Bradley, and my teammates (2022-now)

LD:

1. policy/generic k's (i.e. cap, security, fem, set col, etc.) + topicality, fiat, disclosure, and usual theory shells

2. phil k's/pomo k's (i.e. kant, baud, biopol, pomo as a whole) + identity k's

3. theory (30 speaks, URL, afc, etc.)

4. tricks (gcb, etc. -- don't read these seriously)

please weigh!

lots of line by lines, card dumping doesn't help I need analytics too

anything under points 2-4 need heavy over explanation and judge instruction -- make your links, impacts, warrants, etc. clear

I love policy v phil

don't drop condo

default to util

the 6/7/4/6/3 time set up is not a screw

Speaks:

I'll give a starting 28.5. ill tell you how many speaks after the round if you ask. Don't be offensive and make strategic arguments. Please speak loud and clear. If you're a quiet speaker please try and speak as loud as you can and if you're a spreader I'm fine until I say "clear". If I tell you "clear" multiple times or say I can't understand you and you don't listen speaks are capped at a 28.5. 30 speaks theory is dumb, only way you get it is if they drop it

Evidence Ethics:

I don't prefer these debates, but if you want to have an EV Ethics debate then I'll pause the debate and hear you out on whatever you think is wrong with your opponents case. If you prove to me that they violate some kind of ethic I'll give you the ballot.

Please:

HAVE FUN!! Debate is all about learning experiences, don't take my ballot to heart after all I'm prob just a stranger to you and you have so many more chances to improve. losing one round is NOT the end to your debate career (if it was I wouldn't be here)

Don't read tricks. It doesn't seem like a good way to spend the debate on and I would much rather prefer judging a round with more clash and less manipulating your opponent

Feel free to ask or email me questions before or after round!

PF/Policy:

I am HIGHLY uneducated in PF, policy, etc. so please be clear and I will try and evaluate the best I can. Just treat me as if I'm a lay judge. Judge instructions should be the bulk of your final speech.

Policy I'm more used to b/c of LD but ill have no knowledge on the topic so explain

Sarah Kim Marlborough School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 7:26 AM PST

Hi I'm Sarah (she/her) Marlborough '28! I'm an LD debater (If you're a policy debater idk the topic, so please explain)

Good for email chain: sarahkim28@marlborough.org or SpeechDrop/file share

General

tech > truth

Be respectful and ethical - no racism, sexism, homophobia, cheating, etc. Will be an L w/ the lowest speaks.

General stuff: Really explain your weighing and why/what you win on. If you debate it right, high-magnitude impacts are fine and I love a good impact calculus. During CX, know your case and give me a reason to doubt your opponent's. Be able to articulate and explain your arguments (mostly applies to MS debaters).

Please signpost--It helps make flowing easier

DA / CP

DA's should link and have a clear path to an impact scenario; I don't want to do the work for you. Generic links are fine, but I should be able to know why it outweighs case.

CP's should also be competitive. Perms are great and strategic, but explain why I should/shouldn't buy it. Aff: You can't just say PDB or PDCP and not explain how. Neg: Can't say "they don't get the perm" and be done with it. Good for PICs. Will judgekick if you tell me and give a reason to.

Theory / T

Impact out your standards and do a line by line (slow down if necessary) - walk me through why you're winning. Make sure to give voting issues, otherwise I won't know what the debater did that's actually bad.

Haven't frequently read or hit K's but I'm somewhat ok with cap and fem - for anything else, assume that I'm unfamiliar with the lit, and explain.

Phil

Also haven't frequently done phil debates, but I'll default to util. Just explain other frameworks because I'm probably not familiar with them.

Speaks

Starts at 28.5 and will be determined by creativeness and clarity of arguments. Anything below a 27 means you've done something offensive/unethical in-round. Please speak loud and clear. Not great with spreading but I'll try my best. I'm fine until I say "clear" and multiple "clear"s/when I say I can't understand you means 28.5 speaks max. 30 speaks theory is dumb.

Other notes

Unfamiliar with kvk or PIK debates. No tricks.

Feel free to ask or email me questions before/after the round!

Debate should be a fun and safe space :)

Lauren Ma Gretchen A. Whitney High School 4 rounds

Aaron Mao ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 8:57 AM PST

Things you can do to make me give higher speaks-> Joke +.3|Recommend me a rap song, if it's in my playlist already -.1, if not & I don't like it +.1, if I like it +.5|Run something crazy +.3

HERE'S my actual feedback part of the paradigm

Generics about me:

I do LD in HS for Modernbrain, attend Cypress High in CA, did MSPDP Parliamentary and Policy with the goat SCOTT WHEELER, My current coach at Modernbrain is Noah Christiansen, I’ve done a lot of Mock trial training so I can enjoy a good “speech”, but personally I think debate is much more about info out, I will judge ur speaks based off of your presence and tempo, and your demeanor.

Tech > Truth, but please don't abuse this, running an argument that is SOOOOO obviously not true eg. if we kill this one species that is super niche, causes extiction. but others like CC good is fine. Will vote on anything.

CP competition debates are super fun

Plan flaws are funny, but not really voters so I won't vote for no periods or grammar errors, or wrong spelling, or abbreviations, UNLESS, the AFF abuses in round, reciprocity also applies here, NEG NEEDS TO ABIDE BY IT'S OWN RULES

I like politics DA’s since they have good Uq education and link education, which if that gives u a clue about what standard I prefer, I prefer Education, but Fairness is also really good when done right

If your add is super untopical(unless it’s a k about debate, in which case explain) I want the neg to go for T and say that you shouldn’t be able to weigh the aff. K’s have great ground for don’t weigh the aff in this case as well.

Spreading K’s aren’t that big for me unless you are at a full disadvantage, ie. hearing impaired, processing deficiency, etc. if not and there is no in round abuse, I won’t vote on it

Be on time to the round.

LD:

I do think that Extinction outweighs, doesn't mean I won't vote on Kant or Hobbes, but it has to be WAY BETTER THAN THE EXTINCTION, MAKE HIM WORK
Don't talk to me like I'm lay, like I’m fine if you spread cards, but for Tags and Analytics please slowdown so I can make sure I flow it, if you don’t and I don’t pick it up it’s on you
I like cards used on Nat Cir more but you can absolutely do other forms of cards, it will annoy me but I won't punish you
CP's can be kinda abusive, so most of the time I err aff on condo and theory, For neg, best advice for CP is to get and go for something like PRO FORMA + ELECTIONS DA, (which is what I ran at MSTOC last yr)
Prep ends when you finish cutting the last card or finish writing your last analytic.
Your arguments should compliment each other, eg: running a CP that shields politics then running a non politics DA drives me crazy
Don't abuse the Neg positions, AFF LITERALLY HAS 4 Minutes
AND in reference to 7, reciprocity doesn't check, 4 minutes to cover 7 is crazy nothing can make that up
Everything is based on Offense vs Defense, How much can you attack more and less on what they don't do
Judge instruction is KEY for LD, your last speech should start with: “You will be voting that…”
point out flaws in your opponent’s arguments
Please send out your documents, other than LBL, everything should be sent.
I default to 1AC framework unless neg contests, I like framing debates so please go into depth

Policy:

K's are fine, make sure you explain them though
CP, DA combos are WONDERFUL
Don't abuse prep time, YOU HAVE ENOUGH
I don't like aff condo on policy though, with the added prep and 8 minutes to cover, you should be able to get to it all, UNLESS they run like 20 cp's all 1 sentence and 15 da's
Framework is less important in policy and I think big stick > soft left ANY DAY
If you go for soft left I think you need to explain why you turn the Big Stick
If both teams go for soft left, then please do good Ov's in the 1ar and 1nr, and the 2r's should really make it clear why it matters
I need good clear judge instruction during the last speeches, TELL ME WHY I NEED TO VOTE U

SPEAKS: I WILL GIVE HIGH SPEAKS, usually 28-29.5, just don't be rude that's auto tanks, You can earn boosts with the aforementioned

GEN FEEDBACK THAT I GIVE NEARLY EVERYBODY:

1. I swear if one of you "responds" to the other team by saying they ignored your arg, or you ignore their arg, automatically ur speaks are capped at 27.3. NOBODY WANTS TO DEBATE SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY DEBATE, unless they actually didn't respond then it’s fine

2. Don't lie, PERIOD, If I Catch A Lie, you will get the lowest score I can put, It's bad for debate, and it's not fun for your opponent, when they feel like you're digging them a whole which they didn't even give you the shovel for. Your parents should have taught you

3. I GIVE EVERYBODY 20 MINUTES OF TECH TIME, that's it, take more and it's cutting into prep, YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED. Unless the tourney otherwise specifies

4. Starting early is almost always appreciated, it helps judge and tourney

5. Prep stealing is just rude unless you're in LD, but still don't do it, I will call you out and make you feel bad

6. Time each other, I will be timing for official purposes and for my own benefit

7. If you're coach pulls a Scott Wheeler at Damien earlier this year, and makes you debate with paper, please bring a copy for you're opponents, & me

9. Disclosure Theory is wack unless the AFF is like super niche, and even I've never heard it, I won't vote it most times, but beware weird affers.

10. I am a clean slate judge, I won’t bring in any outside knowledge about the topic or the style of debate other than what’s on here.

11. for more serious comments search up Scott Wheeler’s paradigm, I go hard off of that paradigm because he was my coach, and My current coach, Noah Christiansen

ma mail de electronics: Aaron.jethro.mao@gmail.com, email song requests to my other one: 76thbattleship@gmail.com

Akeela Naqvi Hire 4 rounds

Olivia Ohr Marlborough School 4 rounds

James Pan ModernBrain 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 6:11 AM PST

Please remember to add ALL these emails:
fiatisnotaverb@gmail.com

xbirchtree@gmail.com

aadibhagat2008@gmail.com

jliudebate1@gmail.com

raghav.laxminarasimhan@gmail.com

bradenyian123567890@gmail.com

2N/1A. Peninsula ‘28. I debated on the circuit for two years of middle school.

If you are an Asian cis-het male, check yourself.

If you make a tribute to Angad Hayer in the final rebuttal, you will receive a 30.

If you believe that Peninsula BB has ever won a round in their debate career, strike me in the novice division.

If you believe that Damien KN beat Westwood GK in Round 7 of the Glenbrooks, pref me.

Since strikes do not exist in the novice division, debaters can choose to strike me verbally. If at any point prior to or during the debate, a debater feels uncomfortable or unsatisfied with me being the judge, they can yell the word 'strike' (you HAVE to YELL to invoke this rule). I will then promptly remove myself from the room and someone else will judge your debate.

All my convictions regarding this activity come from Braden Yian. You should assume my paradigm follows his verbatim.

The best high school policy debater of all time is Cephas Liu. The best high school Kritikal debater of all time is Rohan Kummaraguntla.

I don't believe in the model of debate that rejects the importance of rhetorical power and swaying the soul of the judge. More specifically, paradigms such as the ones of Rafael Pierry and Kevin Hirn.

I am best at judging debates that involve kritiks of imagining hypothetical USFG action and ones that involve Ad Homming your opponents.

With that being said, I believe the following sum up my thoughts:

Xavier Burchfield ---------------------------------X Aadi Bhagat

Timothy Liu --------X--------------------------------- Grant Liu

Raghav Laxminarasimhan --------------------------X-- Partner

Jack Liu -----------X------------------------------ Aarush Gaddi

Darwin Boss ---------------X--------------------- Samar Mohan

Imran Kutianawala ---------------X----------------- Nikhil Gupta

Matthew Song -------------------------X------------Adam Khaja

Angad Hayer -----------------------------X------ Aditya Gandhi

Mike Li ---------------X------------------------------ Anita Sosa

Aiden Kwon --X----------------------------- Gautam Chamarthy

Ishmeet Majhail ---X------------------------------- Charlie Pan

Arthur Qin ---------------------------------------------X-- Lais

Ella Pishva Marlborough School 4 rounds

Amit Raichura Honor Academy 4 rounds

Yardley Rosas Hire 4 rounds

Isaiah Salgado Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PST

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.

Anushri Shankar OC Policy Association 3 rounds

Paige Tokuhara ModernBrain 4 rounds

Zhian Xu ModernBrain 4 rounds

Zoe Yan ModernBrain 4 rounds

Logan Zhang ModernBrain 4 rounds

Lucas Zhang ModernBrain 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Marlborough 1

2024 — Los Angeles, CA/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges