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

Marlborough debate - LD since 2019/20ish. Almost everything on here agrees with Adam Torson,Cameron Lange, 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. PLEASE.

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

disclosure is always a good thing, however disclosure interps get so out of hand

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 - impact turn 2AR <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 especially important 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.

Hey, I'm Ananya (she/her/hers)! I've been doing LD for a bit under a year now and did PF for about 4 years before that. I'm currently a high school junior.

If you are sharing evidence or disclosing cases, please send it to my email as well (ananya.anand44@gmail.com).

Here are a few things (listed in no particular order):

• Don't spread
• Please be nice to your opponent (no bullying). Don't interrupt them during cross.
• Please time your own speeches and prep time. Don't exploit this as I will also be timing.
• Off-time roadmaps are greatly appreciated
• If you make any arguments that are racist, sexist, insensitive, etc, the ballot immediately goes to your opponent
• Please weigh impacts! Sooner you weigh, the better. Make sure your weighing is comparative (compare your impacts with your opponent's impacts—answer the question: why do yours outweigh/why should I prioritize your impacts?)
• Please sign post and go over the flow in order (don't jump around/go back-and-forth; if you start with AFF, go over everything before moving onto NEG and vice versa).
• If you're going to collapse, do it sooner than later.
• I'm okay with grouping arguments!
• I don't consider dropped arguments or new arguments brought up in the last speeches
• Do not extend through ink. Respond to the arguments your opponent makes (don't pretend they were never made)
• Please don't post-round. It wastes everyone's time.

Good luck and have fun! If you have questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

Hello! My name is Nicollette Crespin

I am experienced with debate so no need to worry I have debated Policy and public forum.

I am very lenient about how you decide to strategize your debate arguments.

The only things I am picky about are roadmaps and signposting, please I would appreciate it if it's organized and/or if it is very clear.

I don't take ad hominem remarks or arguments into consideration (please refrain from making the debate personal, address the opposite side as aff/neg)

I will take time but I encourage you to take your own time to get into the habit.

How I judge differs; most of the time it's based on

•impacts (how important this is/ be dramatic)

•how structured are your arguments ( I appreciate clear arguments)

•tech over truth v truth over tech.

>>>remember you are trying to convince me why I should vote for you (be as dramatic as you like)<<<

lastly, always remember I want the debate space to make you guys feel comfortable so any rude or mean remarks will be weighed in my judging.

And remember always have fun!

Hi, my name is Elle Dershewitz. I have been debating in LD for three years.

liladershewitz25@marlborough.org

General:

Keep the space safe. Please slow down on tags. I will time your speeches, but I expect you to keep track of your prep time.

TLDR: WEIGH. Be ready to over-explain things. Lots of judge instruction. No tricks or friv theory.

LD:

LARP/Policy:

Please do clear impact calc.

Ks:

I'm familiar with some of the more stock Ks, but please explain in your NR why I should prefer and not weigh the case, as well as what voting neg does. For K Affs, be ready to debate T.

T:

Explain what your opponent's model justifies, what your model justifies, and why I should prefer your model.

Theory:

In-round abuse is the most persuasive, though I will vote on dropped args.

Phil/FW:

Probably not great for these. Will evaluate, but probably won't know specifics of the literature.

Tricks:

Please don't read.

PF:

Not as experienced, will evaluate to the best of my ability. Weighing and judge instruction should be the bulk of your final speech.

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! :)

Hai i am aless (she/her) My email is: alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

Currently debating for the CSULB policy team

Graduated in 2023 & was an active varsity lamdl debater for 2 years.

Preferences-

I am tech over truth however in certain circumstances I will vote truth over tech (usually when the debate round is un-technical to begin with)

I don’t tolerate homophobia, sexism, racism, abelism, or any offensive arguements so don’t try it or I will give you a 25 or simply stop the debate round. If you insult me or the other opponents then I will stop the round and report you. This is an educational activity and I prioritize making this a safe space for everyone.

Onto specific arguments

T/ framework- Just give me everything; definitions, interps, clash, blah, blah ect I love when people tell me how I should judge and give me a clear outline of what the debate means.

Kritiks- I love kritiks especially on the negative. Please run them right though. If you have a k aff tell me how to use your method, why it’s good, and a logical explanation as to why you decided to be untopical. Please don’t simply say something like ‘racism is bad’ give me an acual method on how you specifically combat that (and why that’s good). It’s the same ith kritiks on the negative but just ive me clear links and reasons I should prefer.

Policy affs- I love soft left policy affs but I can rock with a hard policy one too. There’s not much for me to say here except be prepared to over explain yourself with me since I usually judge/prefer krtiks.

DA’s- Explain this well and tell me why your impact outweighs.

CP’s- I think cp’s are funny but I still can vote for them. Just be clear and explain why your cp matters/outwieghts. I do think cp’s can be abusive though so if the aff points this out to me I might vote on it.

More- I am pretty much a laid judge I love instructions on how to evaluate the round so I do prefer role of the judge/ ballot. I love when people use their voice to empahsize important things which is one of the things I take into account when assigning speaker points. ALSO if you have some form of feminism in your arguments I absoluley love that!!! (give me some crenshaw evidence).

The best way to contact me is through email. Bug me if you have any concerns/ questions. Even if I cannot answer them I will give you the people/resources you need to get what you are looking for.

That's it for my paradigm,,, byeeeee!

P.s if i give you a 30 you will get a hello kitty sticker (ur welcome)

.

Hi there! Jasmeet here, she/her. I've spent the last three years debating. I have competed in CX, PF, and BQs. I've scored moot courts and judged debate rounds previously, so don't worry. I therefore know what criteria to use when judging a debate round. Let the debate be enjoyable, please!

Even though I'll constantly be keeping track of time, I would love it if you could also keep track of your own. Always include a roadmap of the material you plan to read. Additionally, remember to signpost.

If you show any disrespect to the team of your opponent, I will take points away from you.

Always remember the following:

1. Avoid showing disrespect.
2. Ad hominem arguments are not allowed; instead, stick to the topic of discussion and abstain from making personal attacks on anyone.
3. No disputes about sexual orientation, racism, or anything else connected!
4. Lastly but not least, HAVE FUN!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For CX:

1. Understand your case inside and out.
2. Understand the yearly resolution that is given.
3. Maintain communication with your partner. This is what greatly improves teamwork. (speaking from firsthand experience)
4. Avoid dominating your partner or speaking in a way that suggests you are rude during CX. Show respect.
5. I absolutely do not tolerate harsh or passive-aggressive behavior of any type. NOT AT ALL.
6. Ad hominem arguments are not to be used. Don't let anyone feel unsafe throughout the debate.
7. Whenever possible, try to stick to your goal or issue rather than wander into irrelevant arguments that will not at all help your position.
8. During the round, feel free to bring up any violation with the judge—myself, in this case. For instance, bring it up if you see someone using Google during prep time or at any other point throughout the round. A debate is never fair to anyone when there is a violation. PLEASE MENTION IT.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For PF:

I don't mind at all how you present your argument, as long as you can persuade me to cast my ballot in your favor. I don't have as much preference for PF as I do for CX because I think it's much simpler to make our points and lay them out there for our opponents to respond to without causing as much hassle in PF as it does in CX (I'm not saying which is better or worse because PF does not have many different kinds of arguments that CX has). Exactly how you strengthen your argument to get my support depends entirely on your team. Just be careful to stay on the right path with your side and never show disrespect during both the regular and grand crossfires. Please put some thought into your rebuttals. I feel the same way about PF rebuttals as I do about CX rebuttals. I LOVE CLASH in debate. Therefore, be sure to show respect and be well-informed about your position for the round. GOOD LUCK!

I understand that debating can be difficult at times, so please try to remain composed and give it your all! Best wishes and enjoy an amazing debate experience!

Thank You!!

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

Hello everybody, I'm Eva Grover. I'm a lay/parent judge with some former debate experience.

What matters most: For me, the most important thing in a round is cleanliness. You could give me the best evidence and case in the world, but if I can't understand your arguments, it doesn't do anything for you as a debater or for me as a judge. Throwing around fancy terms that don't add any value or purpose to the round means nothing to me, and I won't buy it. Simply put, clarity is key.

Speech preferences: Even though I will be taking notes in the round, i'd like it if you don't read fast pls. If I can't comprehend what you're saying, then I can't write it down, and there will be no way for me to remember what you said when it's time to decide the verdict of the round.

(Side note: As a judge, I won't be keeping track of time. Competitors should keep track of time and prevent each other from going overtime.)

Speaker Points: I would say that I'm decently generous in terms of speaker points. As long as I can hear you properly, you aren't mumbling, and you sound confident, I will give you good speaks.

Argumentation: While this should go without saying, I'm looking for an argument that is clean and well- written with reliable sources. Your contentions and rebuttals should be backed with good evidence, and more importantly, good logic.

Don't make me connect the dots. I want you all, as debaters, to put the pieces together and prove to me why you win.

My email address is eva.grover@gmail.com

email chain: sgurrola1005@gmail.com

2ish years at LAMDL

Currently at CSULB Forensics '26

ppl i talk abt debate with: jean kim (pookie), aless escobar, gabby torres, erika linares, curtis ortega, diego flores, deven cooper, jaysyn green

stuff i want you to know

first of all, debate is fun and I want every speaker to continue debating so I try to make my RFD the most uplifting they can be because I believe every debater can be great. I use tech > truth unless im confused then it'll be truth or ROB/FW. you can speak fast butannunciate, if not i will say clear (this is not fun in novice or JV where an email chain is not created so not annunciating can lead to me missing the cards you read, so annunciate!!) tag teaming is fine. i will not keep track of prep i will only time speeches for the sake of speaker points (i.e. stopping your speech 1-2 minutes early will result in lost speakers)

debate preferences

idc what you run but here's some things i like to see with each argument

K:make the link clear, why is the alternative better and how does it access the solvency better. distinguish the perm from the alternative or PIK. or impact. turn the K. good debates will come down to perm vs. alt or an impact turn debate. be sure to take time explaining higher theory. i am open to epistemological shifts.

K Affs: why is your method why does it solve you know. how is XYZ bad for debate. and why does your method make for a better model of debate are things I am looking for. I am not against K Affs so feel free to pref me if you're scared of a judge who is very anti-K (booo!)

DA: make the links clear. i want to hear why the plan will make the status quo worse impacting things out / weighting things out make things sm easier to vote on so include an impact calculus in the rebuttals !! this can be really creative.

CP: no comment lol. i don't really like CPs but if you're running one then tell me how you have aff solvency without any impact turns or DAs that the plan may link to. I think running a CP with a DA goes well. also emphasize the distinctions between the CP and the plan. i will not make that connection for you and if those distinctions are not mentioned enough in blocks and rebuttals i will lean towards any perm the AFF offers.

T: the only time i ran T was in my very first debate round lol. if you use T a lot do not pref me for the sake of both our mental health. it's not something i know much about but make the violations and standards very clear and how it makes that debate bad for the neg. Idk. if the aff is good I usually would never vote on just T unless the aff drops it entirely and the neg carries this fact into rebuttals.

CASE: a friend Erika Linares told me that when you're aff, case is like your baby and you must swaddle it in every speech no excuses. Case is the ground you go off of to defend yourself from other offcases so make sure you care for your case (your baby) every speech idk i just like the way erika put it i thought i'd just put it in my paradigm. if you're not winning on case you are for sure not winning on any other off cases .

speaker points:good speech organization, line-by-line, answering things said in cross X will get you good speakers.

dislikes

running a critical argument that is from the perspective of an identity that you do not belong to.cross X where 2-3 people all speaking at the same time.no roadmap.i would never judge a team extra harshly for doing any of these things but it is but a tiny irk of mine. . .

likes

blue highlighter color! the yellow highlight color must die. Policy v. K/DA.K v. K

thx for reading

since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats i foster cats sometimes and own 3 + 1 stray.if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and appears on instagram quite often)email me your guess separate from the chain and i will reply if you got it right.

Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.

Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB

my email:erikalinares1260@gmail.com

HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:

1. Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
2. Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.

SPREADING: You can spread as long as your clear enough to do so, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to become unclear I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.

HOW I JUDGE:

I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.

BUT-

If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.

K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.

DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.

CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.

T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.

LD-

Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.

I was a policy debater for 4 years in high school about 30 years ago. I'm now a law professor. Debate is both fun and one of the best things you can do to prepare yourself for a variety of interesting careers.

I've judged at 4 novice LD tournaments this year and judged a couple of novice policy rounds at a LAMDL tournament. Until this year, I had never judged LD. I was surprised to see how LD is much more like policy now. As a former policy debater, that is fine with me. I'm open to policy arguments in LD such as counterplans and disads. On the other hand, I am mindful of the fact that LD has traditionally been different from policy and there is an argument that LD debates should emphasize values. I will do my best to take a tabula rosa approach.

I'm becoming reacclimated to speed as I judge more rounds. It is helpful to slow down a bit when you are reading the tag and citation of a card. Your fastest speed should be reserved for the text of the card, but even then, try to be clear. I'm also not a fan of speakers speeding through a block of 5-6 different analytical points with no pauses. Your rebuttal speeches should be slower than your constructive speeches. Tell me a coherent story grounded in your evidence and analysis to persuade me that you won the debate.

e-mail: james.park@law.ucla.edu

Whichever side can present their claims, warrants, and impacts most successfully will cinch the win.

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