Diana Alvarez

she/her

dianadebate@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain.

I am excited to be your judge and I am here to listen to your arguments. As long as they not discriminate or exclude others, I will consider them whether you are reading a K-Aff or have 5 Disadvantages.

I am a former HS policy debater, I judged and coached before. I am familiar with the structure but not the current topic. Please explain your arguments well and remain respectful towards everyone.

For more specific questions, please email me or ask me before the round.

Framework is important to me. I would like to know through what lens I should evaluate your arguments. Why is your framework better than your opponent’s framework?

Hello, My name is Amanda Ashman. I am a varsity LD debater at The Meadows School. My priorities in a debate go as follows.

- Clarity: Speak well and annunciate. Please do not spread unless you plan on sharing your case.

- Curtesy: Please share your case with your opponent if you are running an obscure argument.

- Practice: Most importantly, have fun and remember to flow the debate.

Hey!

Pls put me on the chain: eladesai24@marlborough.org

I'm a varsity debater at Marlborough and compete on the national LD circuit. I am comfortable with most arguments, as long as you explain them.

My views are similar to my coaches and teammates.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Hi! I’m Jessa Glassman and I debated for Harvard-Westlake and am now a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I didn’t debate much last year, but I bid at 3/3 tournaments I went to giving me 2 quals and 6 career bids. Please put me on the email chain: jessaglassman@gmail.com

My opinions on debate are very heavily influenced by my coaches Jasmine Stidham and Scott Phillips, as well as many of my old teammates. Spencer Klink and I share a brain so please reference his paradigm if you want a more complete picture of how I’ll judge the round because this probably isn't the most comprehensive.

(If you’re going to take one thing away from this, please remember that an argument is a claim, warrant, and an impact. That is truly the formula to success!)

- Debate is about discourse, argumentation, and thought, not people. Please be respectful so you and your opponent can have an educational and valuable experience. At the same time remember it really isn’t that deep.

- Aim for 80ish% speed. Both because of any potential technical issues that come with virtual rounds and because my brain has not been in debate mode for a while.

- I’ll only vote for arguments that I understand based on how you explain them in the round- this applies to both literature terminology AND debate jargon. Relying solely on vacuous phrases like ‘switch side debate’, ‘fiat is illusory’, or ‘information is dissuasive’ to do the work for you defeats the purpose of the activity. Do yourself a favor and explain/impact things further to make sure you’re making a complete argument.

- I read a soft left aff almost every round and went for the K a lot (typically some iteration of Fem IR for both), so I am best to evaluate these rounds. I’ll still be a pretty good judge for you if you read policy arguments, and while I am not well versed in phil affs/NCs, I’ll do my best to keep up and am open to evaluating them given your explanation meets my threshold. I believe the aff should at the very least be in the direction of the topic so I’m pretty sympathetic to T-Framework, but I am open to entertaining these debates and could see myself voting either way. I tossed T in the 1NC pretty frequently and collapsed to it relatively often too, so I'll also be good for topicality rounds.

- None of the preferences in the bullet point above matter more than execution. I am more impressed by clear, in-depth, logical arguments, solid weighing, strategic choices, and efficiency than the positions you choose to read. While K rounds can be my favorite, they can very quickly turn into my worst nightmare. Do what you want and what you’re good at…. these are only guidelines. Except for my hard and fast rules below :)

· Always read frivolous theory (a shell without a legitimate abuse story) and tricks (a prioris, skep triggers, nibs, the usual cast of characters) in front of me! These debates foster so much clash and discussion and I’d absolutely love to spend my weekend watching you justify illogical arguments so I can joyfully tank your speaks and give you a loss! Do it I dare you <3

· No RVIs on T… and probably not worth your time to justify them for most theory too. A quick reasonability argument coupled with an explanation of why their argument is silly is sufficient for me to dismiss the shell.

· Disclosure is good.

· ROB/ROJ/etc. are unnecessary. Just weigh arguments and read framing cards.

· Please collapse.

· Please have fun and be yourself! It’s a requirement!

I debate on the LD national circuit for Marlborough.

Please put me on the email chain: anyakarumanchi22@marlborough.org

I prefer policy-style debate and mostly run CPs, DAs, and T/Theory. I am familiar with basic Ks and I have run Ks before, but I am not very well immersed in the literature, so be sure to be explanatory, especially for unconventional Ks. I am not a good judge for phil/tricks. I highly prefer a substantive debate over, say, going for condo against 1 condo CP, but I will generally vote on anything that meets the threshold of an argument.

*record your speeches for online debate*

- an argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact

- I'm fine with speed, but don't sacrifice clarity (online debate probably warrants going a bit slower)

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

- sign post and be as organized as possible

- weighing can be a tie-breaker

- I try to be as least interventionist as possible; you should write the ballot for me

- Don't be offensive or rude. Part of your role as a debater is to make the experience educational and comfortable for everyone. This is especially true in debates where you are the more experienced debater.

My judging philosophy is similar to other Marlborough debaters and coaches, so if you want a more in-depth look, feel free to check their paradigms. I debated this topic so you can also check my wiki to see the types of arguments I read.

I am happy to explain to you the reason for my decision and answer any questions you have after round as long as you are respectful. Feel free to email me with any questions before round.

Hi! please add me to the email chain - lilykinnear22@marlborough.org

I am currently a varsity debater at Marlborough school so I am familiar with topics/debate jargon etc.

- I am fine with speed just make sure to slow down on tags and important analytics if you want me to catch them (i.e don't spread through 7 minutes of analytics in the NR and then expect me to vote on an unanswered 5 second blip)

- You can pretty much read whatever you want but I likely won't vote on sketchy T or tricks

- Most T and topicality are completely fine just make sure the abuse is substantive

- I am familiar with most standard K positions but if it a super unique K slow down and explain thoroughly. I also am not very familiar with obscure phil positions and will probably be lost ...

- Don't be sketchy - its obvious to everyone when you spend five minutes sending your doc and frantically typing that you're stealing prep so don't do it (I also don't count sending the doc as prep)

- Obviously don't be rude - I understand being perceptually dominant in cross-ex but there's no need to be actively rude or cruel.

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 :)