Peninsula Invitational
2022 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Middle School Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAdd me to the email chain: alexborgas@icloud.com
Read whatever you want as long as it’s well explained and warranted.
Your 2nrs and 2ars should make it clear why you won and what I should vote on. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate.
You should do comparative impact calculus between you and your opponent’s impacts and clash with your opponent as much as possible.
Answering your opponent's arguments in the order they're presented makes it easier for me to follow along.
Please time yourselves and have fun.
Add me to the email chain: thenateisgreat@icloud.com
Backup email: thenateisgreat@gmail.com
Nathan Brown, Peninsula 24'
Pronouns: he/him/his
Novice stuff (applies to everyone since I'm only judging middle school/novice anyway):
If you use google docs I'd recommend watching this video before the round: https://youtu.be/OXc7-GAyYOw
If you are unfamiliar with what an email chain is/how to operate one, please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGu6MOEDNeI'
Time your speeches, please!!! Also, time your opponents' speeches.
2nr/2ar should predict the most important things in the debate and make sure they win those, which is a prerequisite to judge instruction. 2ns should not spread themselves too thin in the 2nr or that makes it tough for me to vote on anything when I have too many options but not enough substance.
Top Level:
Call me whatever you want, Nathan, Nate, judge Nate, Nate dogg, etc. I won't vote on what you call me.
I try my best to be a fair judge, but if you don't understand the argument, please don't read it.
Your camera should be on, don't steal prep. If your camera is off, you should be letting me know what you are doing so I don't think you're stealing prep (i.e. sending out the doc). I will keep my camera on during the debate unless something unexpected comes up, so if I'm not visible on camera make sure I'm there.
Recording the debate is allowed and encouraged, it will help you get better.
Clarity over speed, but beware of the dangers of excessive speed and online debate. Relying on the power of your wifi and my wifi is risky, but if it cuts out for a significant amount of time I'll let you know and we can re-start from the timestamp.
Join rounds ASAP, disclose ASAP.
Tech over truth, dropped arguments are true, though whether or not the argument was truly "dropped" can be contested based on the previous speech. Open cross-x good, it's ok to ask a quick question of the other team during your prep, I believe the other team should answer those questions.
Policy:
Aff:
I've been a 2N basically my whole debate career; only run policy affs
I'm not more biased toward soft-left affs vs big-stick affs but know that soft-left affs usually come with the burden of winning framing. I'll vote for them if your framing is sufficient, but I will default to extinction first unless you tell me why to prioritize your impacts. I will never assign zero warrant or risk to extinction, but framing is a good way to mitigate their offense and bolster your impacts, but don't rely on solely framing to take out the neg's impacts. I'm only going to believe that there's an extremely low risk of the DA if you are actually winning some defense against it. Read whatever impact you want, especially nuanced impacts that can't be impact-turned. Also, I don't mind long internal link chains as long as they are logical and "follow-able".
No new 1ar answers unless it's to new impacts/offense in the block of course. If you manage to hide new 1ar answers disguised as extrapolations of 2ac answers, good for you.
Planless affs:
I don't think K affs in middle school/novice debate is a common thing, that's good. If you do read a planless aff, just know I do not have much experience with these but I will hold it to a high standard. I think fairness and clash are good, strong impacts so that makes your burden high. You have to prove to me why the ballot has the role you assign it in the debate, and why that role is good. I will default to the interpretation that the ballot is to communicate which team did the better debating to tabroom unless thoroughly persuaded otherwise.
Neg:
Dissads: Great, this is probably the neg strat you learned how to debate with. A dissad has to be complete, it needs uniqueness, link, impact. Just reading a single generic link card in your 1nc is not enough. Of course, aff-specific links are great, but you can defend generic links too. Make sure you're reading a dissad that still has uniqueness. (i.e. don't read senate elections if they're over)
Counterplans: CPs are good, make sure you have a net benefit. If the net benefit is internal, it's your burden to extend that along with the counterplan. If the net benefit is external (i.e. a dissad), then extend that through the 2nr. It's not a net benefit if it isn't extended into the last speech.
CP theory's a reason to reject the arg. (except condo)
PICs that pic out of a fundamental part of the aff are good. How legitimate your pic is is up for debate. I don't like "should" competition (who does?)
Adv CPs are good, plank abuse might change my mind
Process CPs are probably bad
I think conditionality is probably good, but if you lose it, it's still a voter. For the aff, it will be a lot to convince me condo is bad, but if they're being extremely abusive with it in-round, that's reason to vote aff.
Topicality: Affs should be T. Impacts are important. Also, make sure you extend your interp. It's easier to win T arguments that aren't super limiting and I tend to side with T interps that are specific and clearly exclude the aff's mechanism. It is the neg's burden to prove why the aff doesn't meet their interp, I am especially inclined to vote on the we meet if the neg reads a vague interp.
Kritik: I can't stress this enough, you're probably in middle school if you're reading this, so please only read Ks that you can understand and defend. Reading blocks and never responding to the neg arguments on the K is not a good debate. I believe you should also defend the theoretical/framework reasons to vote for the K, though I am generally reluctant to vote on "you link you lose" unless the neg is clearly and thoroughly ahead on framework. That being said, root cause claims or "our impact makes theirs inevitable" are arguments I believe help mitigate case well. Long overviews are overrated - get to substance.
FW v K affs:
The aff has the burden of convincing me why their interp of what debate should be outweighs any neg offense, and that means responding to neg arguments thoroughly and explaining why your view of debate is better, because I will assume debate is a competitive game going into a round. I love clever neg add-ons or dissads on the FW or T flow. Fairness is an intrinsic good and probably the best impact to go for. Try to explain why you access more offense with FW than they do with a ballot. It's not hard to convince me that my ballot can only remedy procedural unfairess.
=Assorted Theory
ASPEC: prefer not, I'll vote on it if it's clearly warranted in the 1NC and (functionally) dropped by the aff
Disclosure Theory: I think disclosure is really important in a debate. That being said, it's a hard ballot to write unless there is proof that the aff purposefully evaded disclosing their aff before the round. Provide proof they refused disclosure and I'll hear you out, but for it to be a ballot it's gotta be extended heavily in block/2nr.
Condo: above, under "counterplans"
LD:
I do not have much experience with LD, but please refer to the "Top Level" section of my paradigm. If I am judging you for LD, you probably are just starting so don't stress out in round and have fun.
email: mingfeic@icloud.com
Overall:
I've debated at Penn for a few months now, so I'm pretty policy-oriented. I won't vote for any arguments that are racist, sexist, or discriminatory in any way.
Topicality:
T debates are pretty cool. Evidence comparison is highly underrated, and make sure you explain why that's significant(i.e. if one interp is more recent than another, explain why that's important in preferring your interp).
Counterplans/Disads:
These debates are probably my favorite debates to judge other than case debates. Overviews are great.
Kritiks:
I'm not that familiar with the literature, so make sure you explain it well. Most of the generic K's I'm pretty familiar with(i.e. abolition, cap, set col, etc.). I don't particularly enjoy K's without aff-specific links.
K affs:
Same thing as K's, I'm not familiar with a lot of the literature. I'm pretty neg-leaning on the framework debates(fairness is an impact), so the aff has to have strong reasons why their model of debate is better.
Add me on the email chain: redsilverstorm15@gmail.com
Hi! This is my Paradigm. A few things to keep in mind:
-No yelling. While I'm fine with swearing, no racial slurs and no being too loud.
-Post your file to file share OR start an email chain. Both are fine with me.
-No personal insults. No saying someone's ugly, basically.
-K's are fine, make sure you explain them well.
-CP's are fine. Make sure to explain them well.
-T's are less acceptable, but make sure to explain why they are valid.
-Spreading is okay, but speak clearly for the first 10 seconds.
-Disclosure Theory will not be tolerated.
-No Racism.
-Make sure that your Mike is on when you talk!
-No insulting Pineapple Pizza.
Please add both emails to the email chain:
Please disclose before round
Tech>Truth
Won't vote on AdHoms
If you hit a Suiiiiii after each speech, it will bolster your ethos and make me more likely to vote for you.
Telling me who your favorite player is, and I'll either dock or add points depending on how valid I think it is.
Email- abigailimley@gmail.com
Palos Verdes Peninsula high school '25
I agree with Esther Goldman's hot takes ( yes cx is a speech)
Hey y'all!
I love Larp debate- however if you partake in Larp debate without props and a costume, you will get an L 25. ( i dont make rules, I just enforce them)
I air Affirmative on condo- if you ready a conditional advocacy you will lose.
If you read any friv theory- you will receive an auto W 30.
If you sing your first speech ( well) you will be rewarded with 30 speaker points
If you choose to not partake in the singing extravaganza- you will automatically lose ( it ruins my mental health when you do this, it is a safety thing)
If you send me your schools back files, i will grant you a W.
truth>tech- pretty obvious, shouldn't have to say this but debate norms are wack.
Reference to musicals and plays that i like result in a 30 speaker.
If you provide me with the strawberry Burt's Bees chapstick, I will be forever grATEful.
Aff presumption- again pretty obvious you should know this stuff already
I will bully you post round for my own enjoyment, strike me if you dont have the balls for my abuse.
Best,
Abby
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 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.
Junior at Palos Verdes Peninsula High, I am more experienced in policy-type debates
Email Chains
Please add me to the email chain - shawnlo0927@gmail.com
Speaking
Spreading is fine by me. Just be clear, and slow down for theory if you want me to vote on it.
Be respectful but don't be afraid to be aggressive.
Online
I'd prefer it if you had your camera on.
Make sure to mute while your opponents speak
Overall
Tech>Truth
default of judgekick
CPs: One of the best arguments to read in front of me. I'm sympathetic to the aff on theory, and intrinsic perms against cheaty process counterplans, so be careful of that, but I do think process counterplans are great for innovation, and they were one of my favorite cps to read.
DAs: Fully extend your links, and impacts, and do weighing/judge instructions and your good.
Ks: I tolerate them, make sure to thoroughly explain the thesis of the Kritik and the assumptions of the 1AC and why they are bad. Aside from the Ks I always read like Cap and security anything that's "debate bad" is probably not the best strategy to read in front of me, very aff lenient when it comes to FW but not "defaulting" to it.
Kaffs: I have a huge bias against them but if you can convince me about your model of debate, a ballot isn't impossible.
T: not a pleasant experience to evaluate this for me but do what you do--I pretty much never went for T unless it was a K or Phil aff.
Policy
Don't be messy on the bloc separation. Yelling at your partner means docking speaks.
Minimal knowledge of the policy topic so just keep that in mind.
LD
Doing LD this year so I pretty much know a lot about this topic
Whatever you do do not read Phil at me, this is the best for you this is the best for me, till this day it still confuses me, but if you read it, make sure to thoroughly explain what you are saying.
Theory
Condo is good, hate trix, need SS for disc theory, default to judge kick unless condo bad wins,
For better speaks: be organized, do line by line, and send emails efficiently
Call me Shawn
Peninsula '25
please put me on the email chain at andrewl778@yahoo.com
tech>truth
making fun of mike li's height: +0.2 speaks
don't start without asking if everyone's ready, get verbal confirmation
please time your prep and speeches
stop talking after it's time, I don't flow it
clarity>speed
you should have your camera on during your speeches and I will the whole time
I switched to LD a couple of months ago so try to elaborate more on the aff
T:
only run this when you think you can convince the judge that the aff's abusive
topicality is good
don't be one of those people that doesn't send out the standards
fairness is an impact
DAs:
these are nice, try avoiding generic links for ptx but you gotta do what you what you gotta do, just try doing well on the link and framing if you read it
impact calc is good
CP:
condo is good
judgekick works only if you tell me
perm spam tends to be a good strategy until you try extending it
Ks:
buzzwords are bad, if you can't explain your own k, you probably shouldn't be running it
they don't work without links
Theory:
don't think you can extend this for 10 seconds in the final rebuttal and win on it
Miscellaneous:
death good = bad
being mean = bad speaks
being mean to your partner = bad speaks
talking over partner in cross = bad speaks
witty arguments = good speaks
clipping cards = auto win for other team
sign posting = good speaks
not sign posting = bad speaks (probably will have a lot of leniency on this because I don't do it very well myself)
stealing prep = bad speaks
spicy card indicts = good speaks
LD:
basically it's the same thing
i'm not sure why teams feel obligated to read framing but this only matters if they're different so prepare accordingly
you should have a plan defending the resolution
what's a paradigm
idk anything about the topic btw so i may or may not mess up
add me to the email chain or i will be sad
tech > truth
default to reasonability and drop the arg (but drop the debater if theres no arg to drop) if neither are mentioned
don't read 16 minutes of case defense in the 1nc and 2nc
i suck at K's, phil, and sorta T but read them if u want and give me free tutoring on them if u want
I would prefer if you added me to the email chain: jinuleonam@gmail.com
I am a sophomore at Palos Verdes Peninsula High school who has debated starting in middle school.
Please disclose at least 20 minutes before the round if there is evidence of bad disclosure I will be more sympathetic to theory
General information for rounds: Open cross is fine just don't talk over your partner, spreading is cool but don't sacrifice clarity for speed, always tech>truth in debates I will vote on literally any argument (Death K, Spark, Impact turning Ks) this does not mean I endorse the arguments. Extending an argument is not just saying the tag but fully re-explaining all parts of it.
Please give an order at the top of a speech and signpost
I really enjoy watching you clash with your opponent's arguments and compare evidence meaningfully
Don't assume I understand all your jargon, explain arguments well
I'm fine with sass cursing etc to an extent (please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic)
Cross ex: please be respectful of everyone if you are overly aggressive you will lose speaks and credibility
T: I will only vote on T if you make a specific argument with examples of in-round abuse. Out of the impacts on T I am generally most persuaded by fairness (this applies for framework against K affs as well). Please fully extend Interp violation standards and voters don't just scream they dropped ez dubs.
CP: When reading abusive CPs (certain process cps, annoying PICs that steal offense, technical pseudo net benefits) I will become much more sympathetic to theory and intrinsic perms against that CP so be careful. I generally am not convinced by condo would not recommend going for it unless there was clear abuse or it was dropped.
DA: Nothing special here just make sure your link work is strong. Impact comparison is underutilized in the last speeches. Fully extend links impacts I link through the entire debate.
K: I will not consider Ks if you don't explain the link work well. When running your kritik please explain everything clearly if I don't hear a link specific to the aff or I have no idea what the alt does I will not vote. Avoid spamming buzz words especially when answering cross ex it shows you don't understand your own kritik.
K - Affs: I am biased against them but if you believe in your cause and show clear understanding and care you might win me over.
Speaks: Innovative or funny arguments are good and I will give you extra speaks for creativity
If you teach me a chess gambit for black side that I do not already know +0.1 speaks.
Update for Loyola 2020
Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.
Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:
I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.
You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.
It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.
Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.
Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.
LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.
Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.
.
.
Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)
Update Pending
Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.
Please add me to the email chain ~ belindawang47@gmail.com
I'm a freshman policy debater at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School. My pronouns are she/her. Please don't call me judge during the debate.
Give an order before your speech so I know how to flow.
Every argument should have a claim, warrant, and impact, and please do impact calc so I know how to weigh your arguments. Don't just say you win, elaborate on why.
K's should have specific links to the plan and an alt, framework is important in K debates.
I like a good CP debate that has good reasoning on why the CP's way is better than the plan. I dislike condo but will vote on it.
T debates are good but don't extend it into the last speeches unless there is a viable abuse story and you can win on it, otherwise it's just a waste of time to keep it running when you could be using that prep time on other parts of your argument.
Please be polite and kind to your opponents during the debate.
Feel free to ask me questions about the round after it is over.
Peninsula 24'
Give a roadmap, do line-by-line
Tech>Truth
Clarity>Speed, keep in mind that we are online and there might be lag
Condo is good
won't vote on anything that is discriminatory
Dropped arguments are presumed true
I'd rather hear good analytical arguments over bad cards
DA - Please do impact calc, have a clear link
K - I'm not very experienced with Ks, make sure to have a clear link story and explain it as well as possible
I enjoy case debates
Impact turns - Yes
Fairness is an impact
Please be respectful :)
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.
我喜欢冰淇淋
K vs K debates will be decided by the debaters fighting to the death
Disclosure outweighs
Print a highlighted copy of every speech and hand it to me before each speech
Any swearing of any kind will result in a penectomie
Inequality outweighs will not be flowed