Peninsula High School.

Add me to the email chain: aadibhagat2008@gmail.com

Debated for like 2 years ish.(Policy)

Tech>Truth

I can't really understand spreading so be clear if you chose to do so.

Don't assume I understand all your jargon, explain arguments well.

You don't have to stop prep when the email is sent, so you can stop it when you are done preparing, but I do expect the process of the email being sent to be quick and for both teams not to steal prep.

Extend your offense first.

"DON'T KEEP YAPPING"-a wise debater.

Theory:

I WILL vote on APSEC.(Most of the time)

Don't just reread your theory arguments in the block/2nr,explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa and extend your standards.

Also, if you have Aspec blocked out and you show that to me after round I will give 30 points.

If the AFF/NEG answers the theory argument you made, don't just extend it bc of my paradigm but extend at your your own risk.

"Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start, it's important everyone is ready."

"Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not."--Brandon Lin

Xavier Burchfield

xavierburchfield09@gmail.com

I have been every speaker pos.

I will easily vote on a well explained and debated theory argument

If I am judging novice, which I probably am, DO NOT BE A BLOCK BOT PLEASE, that is not helping you get better, it just looks stupid when you read something and just don't know what it is when answering cross

Prepared to vote on anything

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF WINNING, READ A POLICY AFF, DONT READ A K AFF, AND k's on the neg are a little more easy, but it might confuse me.

I will vote on the K, but the team reading it is at a disadvantage as I don't always feel comfortable voting on it if the debate is messy, or if the K isn't explained well

I strongly suggest you don't read a k aff against me, and if you make a mistake and do, pretend I am a baby. Explain everything very well.

I tend to lean neg against k affs

I usually understand the T-FW arguments and don't need as much explanation, but I definitely need help understanding case.

(I will vote on wipeout or spark or death good)

If it is debated well, I will feel comfortable voting on it

Dropping case in the 2ac and full pushing condo the rest of the debate is a fire strategy

I love a good case turn on the neg in the 2nr, and on aff, i love a turn on a disad

This doesn't mean read something completely new, if you read something completely new, I won't even flow it and the other team doesn't have to acknowledge it because it is not their burden.

Don't be scared to go for risky arguments, I won't take my personal beliefs into the debate, so even if you run wipeout or spark, if it is technically debated well, I will vote for it.

If you are answering cross, and you avoid the questions, and just yap about something else, speaks are going to probably go down.

Pronounce punctuation verbally (Brandon Lin)

Impact turn fairness

SPEAKS

1. 25 --- Rock bottom, you were discriminatory, mean, etc, or you clipped.
2. 26-27 --- You barely spoke and had no warrants and just practically yapped about nothing relevant.
3. 27-28 --- It was mid, you spoke fine, but it wasn't anything great.
4. 28-29 --- somewhat good, you had good clarity, you had good speed and understanding of arguments.
5. 29-29.5 --- You were really good and i liked mostly all of it.
6. 29.5-30 --- You have a very bright future and did really well in the debate.

Please add me to the email chain: yukig1234@gmail.com

Peninsula '26

Tech > Truth

Clarity > Speed

Overall:

I will vote on any argument as long as it's well explain and impacted out. I will default to judgekick. I'm not too confident on Ks but will still try to evaluate them in the debate to the best of my ability. Don't let this stop you from reading them though. If I don't understand what you are saying I will say clear. After I say clear 3 times during one speech, I'll stop flowing. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. It'll be an auto loss. Speaks start at 28 and go up or down depending on what you do in round.

Specifc arguments:

Topicality/Theory: Provide counterinterps, specific violation, etc. Fairness is probably good. I won't vote on RVIs.

Counterplan: Perms are a test of competition. I lean neg on condo but I will vote on it.

Disadvantages: Impact calc is important. Doing good work on the link debate is also important.

Kritiks: Make sure you understand the kritik and can clearly explain the story. I am familiar with basic Ks (Cap, Set Col, Imperialism, Security) and some other random ones but try to explain your K clearly anyways.

For LD and PF, I'm not familiar with the topic so please clearly explain confusing arguments.

Have fun! ☺

Peninsula '26

peninsulamkdebate@gmail.com

Top Level: Tech > Truth.

No marked copies if it's only one or two cards.

Asking for skipped cards/positions requires prep or cross-ex time.

Time your own stuff and keep track of prep.

Open-cross if fine, don't ask if it is. Don't interrupt your partner.

Disclose at least 20 minutes before the round.

Tech > Truth.

All theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team unless dropped or its condo. I will evaluate the condo debate purely technically.

Good for T, Disads, and all counterplans.

For Middle Schoolers only: If you read a process CP and the other team can't answer it, and then youdon't go for it, and win, I will give you much higher speaks.

Fairness. That's all I'm going to say about kritiks.

Reading any kind of "Pomo" K is the equivalent of speaking Mandarin in front of me: I will claim to know what you're talking about but will only understand 10% of it.

People you can roast for 0.1 extra speaker points-

Jordan Yao

Aiden Kwon

Iva Liu

Scott Wheeler

Jonathan Yang

Jeremy Kim

Vincent Liu

Anyone in the BEJJP Lab

Anyone on the Pen Debate Team

Update MSTOC '24

firepowerx2@gmail.com

"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:

I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.

"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke

CX, then LD, then CX then LD.

My history in this activity is just Lay -> Phil -> K -> Theory -> Kant/Critical Combo -> LARP with varying degrees of success.

Operating Procedure

I like debate. Here because I want to be here. Will give your speeches full attention. Taken from Pat's paradigm, "That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster"

Definitely on paper in person, 60-40 towards paper for online debate. Indifferent to being on the chain.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

Respect. It's good. But so is answering arguments in the order they were made. Tell me why you win.

Policy 2023-24

Background. Cut lots of cards for this, I know a lot of the core affirmative and negative positions on the topic. I didn't debate this topic as much as I wanted to due to circumstances beyond my control, but I'm confident in my adjudication ability as I've spent many weekends thinking about it.I worked with some younger debaters to various degrees / did pre-round prep / cut cards / drills. These kids ran Poly-Crisis and Degrowth.

Econ, Politics, and Elections need updated uniqueness evidence - reading cards from last yar when your opponent has one from last week puts you in a difficult spot.

Second constructive should leverage positions in your first. Sandbagging is terrible. You should present your best version of your argument as soon as possible. I don't understand why you need eight "econ high now" or "biden wins now" cards in the 1NR but you do you.

I dislike novice T debates because no one does any weighing or line by line at all. If this isn't you, this is a challenge to change my mind. I dare you, and if you succeed in this endeavor you will receive no less than a 29.1. Please don't use topicality or theory to exclude less experienced debaters.

2NRs should get to the case and 2ARs should get to the disadvantage -reiterating your points means nothing amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Condo prob not that good but not that bad.

If you're reading like > 5 off case positions in novice consider why and how this will help you or your opponents learn... but also they have eight minutes to answer it so tough luck for them I guess? If this paradigm says anything it's that I prefer depth.

LD

I do/did this. Topic familiarity high.

Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"

Do anything

Phil/LARP > K > T/Th >> Substantive Tricks >>>>> Theoretical Tricks

Theory prob DTD. Make reasonability offense.

I'm the only person associated with my school in many, many years who gives a damn about philosophical arguments. Like, I read these. I also read the books they're cut from, and I think they're an integral yet unfortunately fading part of this activity. Cards are cool but like you don't need them. I really don't get the obsession with "I have a card and you don't" - like we're all smart people who can justify things...

Add me to the email chain

' gronkyd@gmail.com '

Peninsula '27

second-year policy debater

Tech > truth, tell me what's true don't expect me to know it

this means I will vote on BS args if you have a clear claim warrant and impact that goes uncontested

Speaks start at 28.5

Please spread clearly, if I cannot understand you I might miss stuff in your speech

Inexperienced with K, if you plan on going for it please thoroughly explain your links and the alt

not a big fan of K affs and am sympathetic towards the neg, but if there are logical reasons against T I will vote aff

absolutely 0 experience for KvK debate

Peninsula '26

Add me to the E-Mail Chain: troyalexwilson@gmail.com

Tech>Truth
Clarity>Speed

Since I'm probably judging novices, just extend your arguments with clear warrants. Your goal is education, so go for things you want to understand or want to get more experience in. I'll try to give you a good RFD, but fair warning, I might not be the best at explaining things.

T: Warrant your arguments well, I believe fairness is an impact but will vote on anything technically winning. Not the best judge for this, but I believe I can hold my own.

DA: Give Impact calc, overviews if it's confusing, will probably be fine regardless. Links > UQ, but link warranting is important.

CP: Explain them well. I usually err neg on condo.

K: Not the best judge for this. I understand generic K's, but anything confusing please give a simple, efficient overview. Framework, I'm usually middle ground.

Open Cross Examination is good

Keep track of your own time

Coach for Peninsula

Plz put me on the email chain atStevenyu0923@gmail.com

Tech over truth dropped arguments are presumed to be true, but I do believe that true arguments are easier to defend.

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more explanation is needed beyond it's "dropped" or tag line extensions.

Truthfully, not the best flow in the community so would like you to slow down on analytics especially if not in the doc.

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it's missing any one of the 3 components, I reserve the right to not vote on it.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Tech over truth. But below are my predispositions. They can all be changed by technical debating but I find myself being convinced easier if debaters abide by said predispositions.

Anything is game. No args are off limits. Whether it's egregious impact turns or stupid theory arguments. But arguments about personal issues or issues outside of debate is off limits.

Fairness is likely an impact.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Familiarity with arguments

Policy stuff all fine. Not a big fan of politics.

Turns case is as probable as the rest of the DA. If DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% so the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA.

Not a fan of complex theory debates other than T.

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school.

Ks are fine. Although it's best if the FW interpretation allows your opponents to weigh the plan because it's defense not offense. If you win FW without a link to the 1AC then I still vote aff on presumption. If you are spreading analytics on FW straight down, please save pen time. Winning case is a good idea proves education about case is good.

K aff vs T --- I find myself more aff leaning then people would imagine. I believe the only real internal link for the neg is predictability. Even that internal link is arbitrary and likely can't solve. K affs that just call T or whatever the neg does microaggressions will find a hard time succeeding in front of me. K affs that undercut the neg's internal links to fairness by indicting legal precision or predictability could be very successful.

I believe PIKs, creative impact turns, or counter advocacies are also ways to negate K affs.

LD

God forbid I ever judge LD but if I do, please stay as far away as possible from Phil or Tricks.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep