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! ☺

add me to the email chain: jeremykimdebate1@gmail.com

Peninsula '25

my paradigm reflects pretty much all other peninsula debaters so you can refer to that if you want more info

send out the 1ac before the round PLEASE

give an order before your speeches

tech>truth

clarity>speed

assume tag cross is allowed

time your own prep and speeches

read a plan!

please make my job easy and do impact calc.

u can choose to recommend me a song to listen to while I'm writing my rfd +0.1 speaks if i like it, -0.2 if i don't. no points if i already know the song. u get one chance. genres I'm pretty into rn: rnb, rap, jazz

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

peninsulalailai@gmail.com

Peninsula '24

Stanford '28

Novices, remember these things:

Do line by line. Try to answer your opponents' arguments in the order they made them.

Extend your offense first. This means if you're aff, extend your advantages first. If you're neg, extend your disadvantages first. Defense (responding to your opponents' offense) comes later.

I have found two extremes with evidence. In half of the debates I judge, cards get forgotten. In the other half, cards are overemphasized and rebuttals are referring to cites instead of making the actual argument. Remember to find a balance where you explain your arguments, but refer to authors to support your arguments.

Understand the arguments you are making. I understand it's easy to read the files your varsity teammates gave you, but really try to understand, please.

Ask questions!

nanruili2025@gmail.com

Peninsula 2025.

Conditionality is good.

The negative should disprove the desirability of the affirmative. Case specific strategies will result in higher speaker points and a greater chance at victory. Process counterplans and generic framework critiques are not ideal and will be an uphill battle.

In particular, critiques should make sense in a world where the plan happens. Framework should not be employed as a procedural violation to invalidate the entirety of the 1AC.

The affirmative should prove the desirability of the resolution. In other words, not a big fan of critical affirmatives.

Peninsula '25 (hopefully) Yale, Harvard, or Stanford '29 (definitely)

Put me on the email chain: neptunicrager@gmail.com

Do impact calc or I will obviously and visibly flip a coin while staring at you, immediately submitting my ballot following that. You cannot prove a connection between these two things.

Not voting on something I didn't see happen in-round. This includes not disclosing past 2NRs.

+0.5 speaker points for a well-maintained wiki. Let me know if you think you meet that criteria.

CX open + binding, spreading good--this isn't a midwest local (hopefully)

Clipping is an auto-win--just not for you.

Truth > Tech insofar as I will probably try to subconsciously rationalize a ballot for arguments I think are better.

CONDO. It's good, have never gone for condo in 4 years as a 2A, but you can win it's bad--some stuff if you're getting curbstomped on substance and want a cop-out:

If the aff can prove the neg constructed the 1nc in such a way that it was impossible to respond to, i.e. contradictory condo, I'll eagerly vote on it.

2NC counterplanning out of straight turns is annoying and cowardly but you can probably justify it. Aff should straight turn in the 1AR, not 2AC to prevent this. Also, usually it often screws with their offense so be on the lookout.

Number of off doesn't really change how chill I am with conditional advocacies unless your interps make it such--doesn't meet the counterinterp, or the debate comes down to like 1 CP, 1 K vs 3 condo or some numerical comparison where the debate comes down to the merits of that one extra advocacy.

I can tell if you're going for it because you're losing everywhere else and want to turn the debate into a coinflip- I get it, but is substance really that unwinnable for you? Will probably lower your speaks if you go for it as a cop-out but doesn't consciously affect the decision itself.

Have a real interp in the 2AC. Once saw a shell that was "Condo strat skew research dispo solves" and I reconsidered my involvement in this activity. Please, make it well thought-out and intricate in the constructive if you want to have a shot at winning with a blown up 2ar.

K Affs:

I really wanna see a topical K aff debated well. I'm talking Atticus Glen style arguments. High skill floor, but I'll be impressed and give you high speaks if you can pull it off effectively.

Reconsider reading a planless aff in middle school/novice year, but for these debates:

Fairness is an impact and will be unless "just an internal link" is literally dropped

Aff should impact turn neg standards. Your C/I almost never solves their offense and the Limits DA is fire

Very sympathetic to the argument that the only thing my ballot can do is decide who won on a technical level, and convincing me otherwise in the face of competent debating is an uphill battle

Counterplans:

Significantly less convinced of neg's pleas for absurd counterplans on Fiscal Redistribution. Go for the Econ DA! Debate the case!

The Aff should go for theory more. Probably like 70/30 aff in most instances with a well-crafted interp (multi-level fiat, international, multi-actor, honey) (Side Note: Interp's really important. "Process CPs are bad" probably isn't one, "consult CPs bad" probably is.

Send permtexts. It's time-consuming and hard to think under the pressure of a huge 1nc, but competition is a great way out of a debate where you may have zilch against a new process counterplan, and I just enjoy these debates if done well (or competently given it's middle school)

Functional + Textual competition is weird to me. Why not just go for theory instead of making up a new way counterplans compete? Smart perms are fun to see, but seem intuitively bad for neg offense and debate in general.

Offsets is obviously not competitive if they don't have "increase fiscal redistribution" in the plantext. Counterplans compete with the Aff, not the topic--if they're not the topic, go for T!

Taxes PIC competition is 50/50. Aff should have a deficit or be prepared for the Perm do the CP debate.

Universality PICs are... hard. It feels bad to give the Aff subsets, but also probably unbeatable if the neg goes for a PIC? Maybe the solution is just to read social security, idk.

I have a higher standard for advantage CP planks than most. The Aff obviously gets new 1AR answers to planks not substantiated with a piece of evidence if not written out in excruciating detail. If Eagan LS would have read your CP, reconsider.

DA:

DAs are pretty good on this topic, for the first time in forever. You could probably beat every universal BI or JG aff on Econ DA + case--and high speaks if you do.

Contextualizing the link will do wonders. Super hard to justify a neg ballot when your explanation and spin doesn't go beyond the generic 1NC card. If you don't have any specific links, then spin like it's goddamn ballet and go for gold

Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones. The best interp of fiat is one where the consequences of the Aff are focused on, not any extraneous BS.

Horsetrading is arguable- it's based on the consequences of passing the plan and the plan alone absent some sort of weird attatchment to it but nobody writes these DAs anymore so who really cares

K:

As the meta moves away from substantively engaging the Aff, I get less and less amendable to neg framework pushes. You don't even have a link to the Aff--you've gone for FW as offense. These often contradict the links, as well--if the aff makes it less likely, but it's also antiblack, isn't it good to prevent antiblack violence?

FW: Aff probably gets the plan but that doesn't mean it's all that matters--best interp is probably that aff has to defend reps but gets to use the consequences of the plan as a justification for them. Neg gets reps links but has to explain why it outweighs the plan's consequences. Both sides agree you can't sever representations from justifications so it comes down to case debate. K debate is case debate!

Perm seems very hard to beat on this topic. When the Aff boxes you into "giving poor people money bad" you're in the wrong parts of the library for debating in front of me.

Alt's super important and people don't put much thought in anymore--go for the perm if it solves the impacts to the K, not the links because double bind becomes real. Alt bad must be a part of the 2ar--"case outweighs" gets you nowhere against competent teams.

Author indicts are gonna need to be impacted out because 20 "deleuze is a pedophile" cards or whatever doesn't really amount to much substantive offense.

Psycho's probably bs. Will be easier to prove I should reject it for unfalsifiability than not.

T:

Very hard to convince me debatability is all that matters with competent precision/predictability explanation by the aff. Predictable limits, precision prerequisite to ground, etc. are all pretty damn convincing and predictability outweighs is generally the aff's best bet.

Not very many reasonable T violations on this topic.

Lean neg on T courts for debatability reasons given there's 0 lit on either side.

Reasonability is just the argument your c/i solves enough of their limits DA that the predictability DA outweighs--explain it more like that instead of "1% risk we solve any of their offense is AUTO AFF BALLOT BECAUSE SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT!"

Non-resolutional procedurals should lose to infinite regress.

Feel free to ask about the decision- I encourage it. It's really helpful for growth to understand how you could have improved your speech and even more so to actually do it (redos!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OLD:

I will never vote for the quid pro quo counterplan. Under any circumstances.

I will drop you for using mac. Non-negotiable.

Firm believer in all disciplines being equal- besides mental evaluation it must also be physical- post-round you will physically combat the other team (or because of online debate challenge them to a clash royale match) to determine speaker points and I will give the winner a piece of chocolate- this also means I am persuaded by a challenge of a physical confrontation in the 1ac in order to determine the ballot.

My memory isn't great so please recite every piece of evidence you would like to extend word-for-word

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

Vagueness is almost always good- if I can't understand what the aff or alt does by the end of the round that motivates a ballot not to mention the strategic benefits

Ground and Grounds is the same word

Truth > Tech- I do not flow and will be evaluating the debate purely based on cards

RVIs are very persuasive- requires significant negative investment to convince me not to vote on it and that time investment just proves skew further

I will not disclose personal moral beliefs- however if you violate any it will make it almost impossible to vote for you

Trump won the election. Take from that what you will. "Biden solves" will result in a 25 and auto-loss.

Do not look me in the eyes during cross-ex- I will view it as a challenge of my authority and any maggots who dare gaze into the void will be consumed

Argue with the other team after the round to determine my decision- look to pf grand cross for an example

Feeding into the previous vagueness point- this applies to speaking too- I will believe you if you say you finished a card unconditionally and accusations of clipping will be punished

My _ key is broken- please do not say any word with an _ in it or I will not be able to flow it and be irritated

Make an obscure reference to (insert unknown debater) for 0.1 extra speaks!

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.

Will evaluate arguments either team asserts as dropped as made even if unintelligble earlier

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

Peninsula '27

Add me to the email at peninsulaLL27@gmail.com

——————————————————————————————————

Novices

I know debate can be hard, just have fun and do your best! I'll try to evaluate as fairly as I can with the least judge intervention.

peninsulaLL27@gmail.com

Try my best to be tech > truth.

Flow and respond to your opponents arguments.

Cards are not everything! You do not have to read a new card for every argument the opponent makes. Try your best to use evidence you have already read to respond. (2AC and onwards).

Evidence comparison is very cool. Please remember you had 2 constructive before the rebuttals and use the cards you read.

Clarity > Speed.

Judge instruction in the 2n/ar is very helpful. Outline the exact reason that I’m going to vote for you and I will be extremely happy.

Be nice!

(Bonus speaks if you tell me who your debate idol is. Double if they’re from Peninsula)

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...

usefordebate1@gmail.com

Spreading is fine as long as you're clear, still fairly new to judging, currently debating mostly substance, not too informed on K-style debates but I'll try to follow it, just explain the links very clearly and articulate the neg story. Theory and T are fine, just don't be frivolous and I generally buy drop the arg for anything except Condo. The base for speaks will be 28, +0.1 for being funny. -0.2 if you fail to be funny. I don't vote on tricks and do impact calc on the 2nr and 2ar. Tech > Truth but I don't buy fake or racist arguments, and if you run racist args you're getting the lowest speaks.

Give an order before your speeches.

Do impact calc at the top of the 2nr and 2ar- explain your args.

Don't read random blocks, contextualize your arguments for what your opponents are reading

Cameras on if tech permits.

Peninsula ’26

Add me to the email chain:

jonnyfyang@gmail.com

Debate is a game with a winner and a loser. The fundamental objective and driving force is to be the best and win the game. Do whatever is strategically deemed of you to have the best chance of winning, as long as it is not constrained by ethics or by your morality. This means different things to different people, so I won't judge based on what you think good and effective technical debating is.

However, for argument selection, please do not read racism good, death good, or any other argument that pertains to discrimination/suicide good in any way. Those arguments are never okay, even as a joke. Other than that, you're good to go.

Be nice. We are peers playing a competitive game, but it doesn't need to become a hateful experience. Focus on your mental attitude and treat others the way you want to be treated.

I'm mostly going to be judging novice debates, so I'm going to emphasize a couple of things.

1. Do impact calculus! Give me a clear explanation of the impact you are going for and why it might be more important than the impact they are going for.

2. Flow! It's the main aspect of debate. Answer all of the arguments they have made, and when they drop yours be quick to point it out.

3. Please ask questions!!! I don't expect you to debate your best but I want you to improve and use these rounds as building blocks to improve future debates. Even generic questions like "Thoughts on x speech" are good and appreciated.

Have fun! Do your best and make sure to smile :).