Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 3
2021 — Online, CA/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Coppell '21 | UT Dallas '25 | He/Him
Conflicts: Coppell (Former Debater: 2018-2021), Quarry Lane (Public Forum Coach: 2021-), Brookfield East (2021-)
- **HIGHLY IMPORTANT** - Read the arguments you want and debate in your own style. The activity is supposed to be enjoyable, not one where you can't debate a certain way in front of a certain person. The more creative and fun you are in round, the higher likelihood you get higher speaks and everyone enjoys the round. My paradigm sets guidelines for the way I see rounds but by no means should hinder you from reading what you actually want to.
- **HIGHLY IMPORTANT** - Send me your speech docs. Speaks capped at a 29 if you don't send speech docs, and start at a 29 if you do. Cards have to be on the doc. This is primarily for me to ensure that if you're going fast I'm not missing things, but also I want your prep.
- Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
- I'll try my best to adapt to you - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
- Cameras on at all times.
- Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts.
- If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.
Public Forum Basics
- I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
- Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required
- To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
- Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either
- Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
- Link turns need uniqueness responses to make them into a link turn and access the impact of the contention, otherwise it's just another contention with no impact
- Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
- Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue
PF Summary/Final Focus
- Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
- Extend and weigh any argument you go for
- Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
- Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
- Any shell in a Varsity division is fair game - that being said, the more frivolous the argument, the lower the threshold for responses. Below are my preferences on common shells ran in PF.
- Theory about non-evidentiary ethics - things such as misgendering, violence, content warnings, etc. are good to read with a higher chance I vote off of the first 2 if there is clear abuse.
- Theory about evidence-related practices - paraphrasing, disclosure, etc. are fair game - I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but will not hack for these arguments in any way.
- Theory that has nothing to do with content in the round - take a guess
- Do a few things in ANY theory debate to increase your chances of winning - a) clearly extend EVERY part of the shell: this means the actual interp, not the spirit of it, and clear standards, voters, and paradigm issues, b) engage with the CI and do weighing - explain why your CI about full-text disclosure betters the activity in some way related to a standard you read compared to your opponents interp about open sourcing, c) never make arguments about inaccessibility of or against the reading of theory - if there's one thing I just won't believe here, it's that theory isn't accessible to smaller schools or newer debaters
Other Progressive Arguments
- Any argument, as long as it is warranted and impacted out is fair game - limit jargon on uncommon arguments or kritik's
- Layer arguments for me - there isn't a set in stone way to evaluate multiple types of progressive arguments in a round and they are up for interpretation here
- Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
- If you take more than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
- Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
- I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
- If a team can win by reading cut cards only, you're guaranteed a 29 minimum
Strike me if you are not sending speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal. This needs to be done BEFORE the speech. Starting at Apple Valley, I will be tanking the speaks of teams who don't adapt.
I am currently the Head Public Forum Coach at The Quarry Lane School
Quartered at the TOC and have done some policy @ Wake if that matters to you
Current Conflicts: Quarry Lane (2020-present), Bergen County (2021-present), North Broward (Alumni), Ardrey Kell (2020-2021), Flanagan (2020)
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Lets skip GCX (take 30 seconds of prep each) *Both teams need to agree
It's PF, I don't need a 30 second roadmap
-Turn on your cameras
-Email Chains should be standard
-Use the chat
-Evidence needs to be sent in order, 1 minute per card
-"I had connection problems" is a fine excuse to clarify arguments in the debate. Don't abuse this though.
Impact calculus is the most important part of public forum. Explaining why your impact is more significant than your opponents will win you the round if you win your links. Explaining evidence is a part of extending it. For example, "Extend Ferguson 14 from our case" is not an extension, but "Extend Ferguson in 14 who explains that the BRI has been responsible for pushing 40 countries into high debt because countries cannot pay back loans" is an extension. Don't drop arguments. Dropped arguments are extremely difficult to recover from, and in the majority of cases, if a team weighs and implicates their argument, it's game over. I will be flowing on my computer using excel. A link or impact spin I could see coming is not new.
2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st. First summary needs to extend defense given the 3-minute summary change. Cohesion from summary to final focus is vital in gaining offense from your argument. I don't love new argument spins in final focus, but if it was brought up in cross and is something I could see coming it is not considered new. I presume the status quo unless you argue otherwise.
I will disclose my decision in every debate. I will do my best to give the best feedback possible and provide insight into why I made the decision I did. If you have any questions about the round please feel free to ask or message me on facebook after the debate.
Read (kritiks, theory, disads, counterplans, etc). For background, I come from a policy centric team and have experience debating kritiks and running theory. I like hearing unique arguments, feel free to read them. I do think disclosure and reading cut cards are good norms. Ultimately, I am cool with any kind of argument you decide to read, at any pace you decide to read it at as long as it is carded.
Stealing prep time is never a good idea. If you see your opponents stealing prep, call them out.
Paraphrasing in public forum is OK. However, in an effort to create better evidence ethics in public forum, I encourage teams to read cards. If you read cards in constructive, I will give you a slight (+.2) speaker point bump. For another slight (+.2) speaker point bump, in an effort to create better evidence ethics, disclose your case on the NDCA PF wiki. This is not a requirement by any means, but if you decide to do either or both of these things let me know. A guide on how to disclose can be found here
I will also call for all evidence that you tell me to in a debate round.
Average speaker points (2021 Season): 28.3
hey y’all :) I’m a third year debater for quarry lane.
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
as a judge, I expect you to be respectful and inclusive in round — don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped. also, if your argument(s) cover sensitive subject areas, please read a content warning.
- tech > truth
- speed: I’m good with speed but if you’re going really fast (>250 WPM) then send a speech doc.
- please make sure you have comparative warranting, it makes it difficult to evaluate direct clash if there's no fleshed out warrants — I will generally prefer well-warranted arguments over a dump of unwarranted ev
- don't extend through ink, adequately frontline case, and please don't go for like 5 pieces of blippy offense that are poorly implicated (da's and turns need to have impacts, u could even weigh them as early as rebuttal)
- I prefer if teams collapse in second rebuttal and possibly even begin weighing — the sooner the better!
weigh!! -- comparative weighing + impact calc are v important so make sure it's there
- if both sides are going for different mechanisms (ie: magnitude vs probability), it makes it much easier to evaluate if there's metaweighing
frontline in second rebuttal -- frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in the second rebuttal, if you don't frontline defense against an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded
- don't read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, it creates a time skew
- also, defense is NOT sticky -- something must be in summary and final focus at a minimum to make it into the ballot. the final focus should essentially parallel the summary
extensions: extend the entire argument -- (ex. saying "extend the john '19 turn" is not enough for you to go for that turn) Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Cohesion between the summary and ff are v important
signpost! -- i generally flow p well but if your speech is messy, disorganized, and not well signposted i could miss stuff on the flow which obv is not good.
- send ev quickly (it rlly shouldnt take more than 1 minute), speech docs would be great
- don't steal prep -- it's kind of easy to tell and i'll dock your speaks
- don't go over time, there's a grace period of ten seconds but anything beyond that is way over
- solid time allocation, efficiency, quality responses, and strategic round strategy = good speaks (i care somewhat less about speaking style, more about how strategic youre being)
- I don't really pay attention to cross but be nice! — I won’t evaluate something from cross unless you bring it up in a speech.
3rd year on the Circuit
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Tech > Truth (You can win an argument saying that the 1 + 1 = 3 if your opponent does not respond to it, I believe doing anything otherwise is judge intervention)
I require speech docs to be sent before constructive and rebuttal speeches
Frontline all offense in second rebuttal and defense on the arg ur going for (by all means frontline everything I think its a good strat)
Summary should extend defense
When you are extending responses on your opponents case please interact with their frontlines otherwise you're just wasting time.
No new weighing in second FF, very minimal new weighing allowed in First FF
IMPACT CALCULUS: this is what wins you debates. If you clearly explain to me and give warrants as to why your impacts matter more than your opponents, you're much more likely to win if they don't. Some common mechanisms include Probability, Magnitude etc.
+1 if you read cut cards in case
Auto 30 if you read straight from cut cards in both rebuttal and case
Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk
Absolutely not. L20