Tabroom.com

Middle School Policy 0405

2024 — Zoom, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aadi Bhagat Hire

Joshua Chen ADL

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 7:35 PM CST

He/Him, email: joshuachen1208@gmail.com

Experience: Currently a HS Policy and PF debater for ADL

For Public Forum:

PF does not require spreading so please go through your speeches with clarity. Signposting is really important and for summary speeches please give a clear overview as to what ur contention is. Lastly, please be respectful during crossfire if not it will piss me off.

For Policy Top:

Be quick on sending emails

I will time but please time yourselves.

Truth is important but I'm persuaded by logic and presentation

Both teams should prioritize internal link explanation over impact explanation.

Weighing your impacts

Don't go too fast on analytics.

I don't flow CX, but I'll comment on it if there's anything I liked or disliked

Fairness has a great impact, but I also like impacts about iterations, research, and clashes. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

If it's dropped it's true but explain why

Don't make the debate boring

Explaining your link chains,

OVERVIEWS ARE A MUST-HAVE

Aff top:

I would appreciate it if you guys take the initiative to start the debate as well as exchange your case and past 2NRs. I don't really like K Affs, 1A Please be clear when transitioning between cards or advantages. Clear overviews of the advantages during the 2A are needed.

Couterplans

Cheat counterplans that simply "reword" the Aff are pretty funny but I won't vote on them.

Disads

Politics DAs are fun ig
Turns case is extremely valuable framing for the neg.
the aff should have offense when answering DAs. It's always helpful to have the option to shake things up in the 1ar.

Ks - I love them

But I dislike lazy link debating.
Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
Alt shouldn't be too complicated
Fiat and perm can be answered with framework.

Please stay respectful and have a good attitude, especially during cx, or else I’ll get pissed

Kris Deng Hire

Justin Ding ModernBrain

Jason Huang Hire

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM PDT

Jason Huang

he/him

Email chain or Speechdrop are both fine

jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

Debates for Modernbrain

Argument Prefs:

1-Ks/Clash of Civs

2-Larp

3-Theory/T

4-Phil: I enjoy a good phil debate but you have to explain it thoroughly since I don't read a lot.

Strike me for trix

Top Level:

You don't have to call me judge, Jason is fine.

Tech > Truth("The sky is blue" is truer than "The sky is red", so don't go too far)

Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults(changed with one sentence): No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, presumption negates, theory is highest layer

If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then I will buy the allegation and L25 your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you.

Cross ex is binding

Zero risk is not a thing

Don't steal prep---you can take up to one minute to send the email, after that every 30s is -0.2 speaks.

Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Ad hominem and/or making the space uncomfortable is L0.

Accessibility matters. I dislike debates and debaters that don't allow engagement. If you spread 6 off at full speed after the opponent reads a case at conversational speed, I will 100% give you the lowest speaks possible. It's better to have a real debate and win rather than foreclosing the space to win.

I love a good T debate, especially if the shell is well-developed and the 2NR isn't blocked. But when the shell isn't that great and the 2NR still goes for it, I don't like it as much.

Reasonability flow aff if they are topical.

Counterplans

Run any counterplan

"Cheaty" CPs are up for debate.

Condo is good and fun, but not really when you read 6 CPs and each has 5 planks.

I will not kick the CP unless you tell me too

PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

I love a creative disad.

Do whatever you want, make sure the link chain is warranted.

"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott

Link shape uniqueness is true, especially for ptx.

If you go for the DA, give me the plot/story/whatever you want to call it and explain the implications and warrants. I've seen and given way too many disorganized 2NRs that don't persuade in any way.

Kritik

I mostly ran these arguments so I am pretty familiar with how these debates go.

Links are the most important, the K is only valid if the link makes sense. I hold a high bar for K that barely links.

Don't try to use framework to make the aff irrelevant, debate is not "you lose because you don't talk about xyz".

You need more than "Fiat is illusionary"

Kicking the alt is fine, just make sure you are clear. One line that says "we are going for framework" is not enough.

Please explain the literature. I have some confidence in my readings, so I probably understand the core of your ideology. But assume that I know nothing for the sake of debate.

Judge kick is the same for the alt

K affs

I think K affs are cool. But please explain: why the ballot solves, why your method is good, and why your model is good. Affs need to defend their model of discussion and some advocacy. Again, if the aff doesn't change anything, whether in or out of the debate space, I don't see why the ballot matters for you.

Plan affs:

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah

Speaker Points

Floor is 28.5

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to, the debate is yours but your speaks are mine.

Creative strategies, clear rebuttals, not doing stupid stuff, debate like yourself and you'll get nice speaks.

Random:

Debate is a community. You will probably see the same people every single tournament you go to, so try to be nice to everyone(it doesn't hurt). I get things can be heated and hostile but let's let our reason overcome the sense like Plato said. Make friends and have fun.

Don't be morally repugnant(sexist, racist, ---phobic, et cetera)

Victor Kang ADL

Jeremy Kim Hire

Devin Lai Hire

Kevin Lai Hire

Timothy Liu Hire

Richard Simpkins ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:54 AM CDT

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them. One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down. That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative. So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.

Speed:

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed. If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me. Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear. Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context. Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:

I'm evolving on flashing. I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting. This is an unfortunate habit. I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine. I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent. But you still have to be understood by your judge! Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain. I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing! It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them.

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says. Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash. So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution. For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense. If it doesn't, then not so much. I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event. I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience. That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com

Scott Wheeler Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:03 PM EDT

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Hermes Yen ADL

Last changed on Sun May 19, 2024 at 6:08 PM EDT

I like to think that I enter each debate tab, and I don't really have any preferences. Just make sure that you respect your opponents and your partner, bring in a good attitude, and have fun

yenh@mca.org.tw <-- questions/email chain

Please don't call me judge, Hermes is fine

Don't be late. I won't quite dock speaks, but I'll be less inclined to buy your Bing '37 card about how polar bears lead to rapid economic collapse

Case

Warranting is really what I look for, I don't care that much about evidence and whatnot, just make sure you explain the (internal) link thoroughly. I'm pretty tech > truth as long as it actually makes sense. I actually tried to build an anime case one time - so take that as you will.

I was taught from a young age to go for narratives, so that might be someone worth considering. Narratives help me (the judge) focus on one thing particularly, a strong narrative is often a voting incentive.

Rebuttal & Second Constructive

Really prefer line by line, makes flowing so much easier. Preferable if you answer arguments by extending your own, but it's fine if you don't. Again, warranting>evidence, don't throw cards at me. Analytic arguments are fine. Second team, please frontline in the rebuttal to make the debate fairer. Non-unique and delinks are fine, but make sure you have some offense on rebuttals too - link turns and outweighs. otherwise the argument could go on presumption.

Summary

First team, make sure that you prioritize frontlining, otherwise, I won't be judging your impacts. Absence of frontlines means that essentially you concede to rebuttals, so don't do that.

Remember, summaries and final focuses are about closing doors, not opening them. Be sure to collapse on arguments, please don't give me 38173 gazillion contentions in final.

If you have time, make sure to weigh. It makes the second speaker's life so much easier.

Go down key clash in the debate, explain why you think you won those, and explain why that matters.

(I won't flow new arguments)

Final

Make sure that you limit down, and collapse on the arguments you think you won. Impact calculus is really good, and a necessity for any good team.

Cross

Be respectful, please! In general, close-ended "trap" questions work best, and humor is much appreciated! Just don't be too mean. I don't flow cross, but it's binding and I do listen.

Progressive args

I used to hate them, now I like them. I have some background in policy, so "DA with framing impact" or "Generalized alternative" is good. Just don't abuse this - don't read four different counterplans each with their 20 planks.

Misc

Generally, I'm a-ok with speed, but make sure your opponents can understand. Debate is about communication, not overwhelming the other side (and the judge) with evidence. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.

Please be respectful in general, and be nice, or else speaks go blop.

Framework is all too often not developed enough, but can be a powerful tool if developed correctly. It tells me how to judge a debate, and I'll default on whichever team has a frame. If you don't respond to a frame with a counter-frame, then there's nothing for me to vote on otherwise, and so use the frame offerd. Unless it's not warranted, or the team without framing tells me the frame is 1. unfair or 2. uneducational or 3. not topical or 4. not as good. If you just say your frame outweighs or something then I'll still go with whatever frame was provided first. This method is a tad bit unorthodox but I don't like switching frames unless there's something wrong with the first - I do give aff a bit of ground here with framework (as they go first).

Clash is necessary for me to decide the winning team, absence of clash will lead me to vote for whichever team has the most convincing warrants.

I try not to intervene, but find that at this level of debate it's difficult not to.

Policy

top

I don't have an ideal debate, I'm a big fan of k vs policy, or k vs k, but policy vs policy is just a little big not as spicy for me, unless clash is really good

case

not much to be said here, big fan of progressive affs - read kaffs at your own risk, make sure YOU understand them and relate them to the topic

disad

make sure you win your impact (this is particularly important to me) as what i think that as long as the aff impact outweigh you, voting aff minimizes risk

please don't run seven off, i do have an innate preference for reasonable dispo. but by all means - go for condo on aff, it's an easy win if neg fumbles

topicality

less concerned with what the intent of nsda putting the reso out and more concerned with in-round implications of what voting neg or aff means --> framers intent is a good arg for both sides, more concernced with "real" voting issues eg fairness and educatino.

tldr; make in-round implications

condo - skew neg on dispo (within reason)

make sure k links to case, make sure you understand the k

used to not like k, but ever since i started winning cap ks against very liberal affs (ubi, social security) started enjoying ks more and more, obviously i have ideological biases but they won't affect judging at all. make sure k linkk to aff is very explicit, make sure the alt is good, offer a good frame for an easy win -

Speaks

i skew high on speaks so i'm not the one that messed up seeding

Don't forget to have a good time!

Steven Yu Hire

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 4:24 AM PDT

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.

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

Login to Tabroom

Middle School Policy 0405

2024 — Zoom, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges