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.

hi! I’m rory and I use she/her pronouns. I’m a freshman at marlborough and debate on the national LD circuit (2021-current)

please add me to the email chain - carolinebaskin27@marlborough.org

thanks lucia for stealing my paradigm <3

general

policy > k > phil > tricks

tech > truth

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, but please be clear and intentional with what you definitely want me to get down

do NOT neglect impact debating - weigh in your rebuttals, tell me what metric to use and why. throwing around the buzzwords of “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability” isn’t sufficient, and I won’t necessarily default to the most tenuous risk of an extinction impact

also, don’t underestimate the value of good case debate - I would much rather you spend a significant amount of time on coherent case turns than 8 underdeveloped off at the expense of any case responses

counterplan / disad

love creative das, especially if you can give a thorough and not docbotted nr on them

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

don’t read anything in the nc that isn’t of good enough quality to go for in your nr

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'll be very sympathetic to a rh abuse theory shell - make sure that you're accurately and fairly representing the author's true meaning

k

I’ve read and am comfortable with cap, security, set col, and fem - for anything else, assume that I’m unfamiliar with the literature and be very explanatory

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

I wish so badly that I was good for these debates! sadly, I’m not, but I’ll try. be extra explanatory if your framework is literally anything but util, and tell me why it excludes other impacts

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

have fun, keep debate a kind and educational space

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! :)

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 :)

debate at marl

abigailmerges26@marlborough.org

i like policy args - no tricks pls

Hi! I’m Margo - add me on the email chain with margalitsalkin25@marlborough.org. email chain > speechdrop, but I’m good with whatever.

Pronouns are she/her/hers.
Marlborough Debater in LD since 2020 ish. All my opinions about debate are copy and pasted from Adam Torson, Cameron Lange, and Chris Theis. Of course, good debating can change a lot of them.

TLDR

Comparative Worlds. I’m an okay judge for your policy args and well known ks but not really the best for that postmodern theory or tricks.

Write the ballot for me - I can’t tell how you want me to evaluate the round unless you say so, so making my life easier makes your life easier. I have found that I am more persuaded by weighing than one would expect - I think you can still win if there's a dropped da if your weighing is good enough.

Also, I evaluate everything based on what I flow and I don’t flow tricks, so take that as you will. Else than being very anti tricks, I have no clue how you expect me to get those 200 one liners that you sprint through like there’s no tmrw.

Obviously a hard no to anything racist, sexist, and so forth, real evidence ethics violations, and any harassment whatsoever.

General Policy

Probability matters more than having the only “extinction” scenario if it’s not fleshed out.

PLEASE extend your warrants and the link chain, not just impacts

Sorry to say I’m not the girl for that docbotted co2 ag nr from one nc card. Even if tech > truth, my caring about truth isn’t sprinting towards 0, so if there is literally anything on the flow you will not be getting the w. I can be more persuaded on other arguments, but you'll be hard pressed to convince me climate change isn't real.

Theory plus T

Please please slow down on analytics and lbl the standards.

I think most times disclosure theory is dumb but just top level disclose. It’s a norm and bad practice to not do so.

Condo and PICs are probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Semantics are a floor not a ceiling.

K

I’m familiar with most generics, but not with more high level critical literature, so please make sure to explain your arguments.

Links specific to the aff are key, and imo that has to be offense not “the aff tries and fails”

If you drop the alt or that it doesn’t solve, that non uqs the k.

Yes to impact turns - a winning cap or biopower good 2ar is just more fun than the perm.

CP

If it’s cheaty, I’ll have a lower bar for theory.

I just don’t like judge kicking. Even if you’re condo, I don’t think it’s fair that you get to have multiple paths to the ballot in the NR

DA

Nothing much else than uniqueness controls the direction of the link

Plz give me impact calc

Phil

I promise you that I am not the person you want judging your phil. I don’t enjoy debating it, I’m bad at understanding it on a truth level, and will probably find myself without a coherent rfd.

Please give me examples and offense as to why your philosophy is uniquely good and means we should exclude other impacts.

Misc

Debate should be fun, so please be kind and try to make the debate space as inclusive as possible.

I love and think cx is underutilized. If you have a smart cx, that will translate to me being happy, which means better speaks.

As someone who considers themselves more or less nice in real life but definitely mean in cross ex, I’m cool with being aggressive as long as you don’t cross the line.

hi! I’m lucia and I use she/her pronouns. I’m a freshman at Marlborough and debate on the national LD circuit (2021-current)

please add me to the email chain - luciasanchezgagerman27@marlborough.org

general

policy > k > phil > tricks

tech > truth

be respectful and ethical - no racism, sexism, homophobia, cheating, etc.

I’m fine with speed and topic jargon, but please be clear and intentional with what you definitely want me to get down

also, don’t underestimate the value of good case debate - i would much rather you spend a significant amount of time on coherent case turns than 8 underdeveloped off at the expense of any case responses

counterplan / disad

love creative das, especially if you can give a thorough and not docbotted nr on them

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

don’t read anything in the nc that isn’t of good enough quality to go for in your nr

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

please 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

k

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

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

phil

i wish so badly that i was good for these debates! sadly, i’m not, but i’ll try. be extra explanatory if your framework is literally anything but util, and tell me why it excludes other impacts

middle school debate

everything above still applies if you are debating in the middle school circuit, just remember to focus on good argument clash, and be as clear as possible in your speeches, and answer all your opponents arguments. and of course, feel free to email me or ask me any questions after round!

remember to have fun, be kind, and good luck!

Hi! I’m Chloe. I’m a freshman at Marlborough and have been debating in ld for 3 years.

Yes please add me to the email chain - chloeswidler27@marlborough.org

General:

policy>k>phil>tricks

args that are offensive (racist, sexist homophobic etc) will get you an L with lowest possible speaks - same for clipping/ev ethics

Weigh in your rebuttals

Slow down when switching flows and on analytics - signpost

Cross-ex can be purposeful without being rude - your speaks will be affected if you are rude

Disclosure:

Disclosure is a norm in the debate community and should be done. However, I am unlikely to vote on that one round your opponent forgot to input from the Sep/Oct topic.

K

I can handle basic Ks (cap, fem, setcol, afropess etc). For everything else slow down and explain

I will not vote an alt I don't understand

Dropping the alt non-uqs the k

Love a good impact turn

Please don't docbot your whole NR and not interact with 1AR it will not end well

CP/DA

Most comfortable evaluating these debates

Impact calc

Explain the NB and how the DA doesn't link to the CP

Depending on how cheaty the CP is and how many CP's there are my theory thresholds will change

Tell me to judge kick or not

SLOW DOWN ON PERMS

Theory/T

In general, depends on the round no preconceived thoughts

Just because the argument is dropped does not mean it is true - impact it out in your rebuttal

High threshold for hidden arguments/tricks

Slow down on analytics

RVI's probably don't exist

Phil

Not great at evaluating these debates but I will try my best

Be nice; debate should be fun and educational