Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 12
2022 — Online, CA/US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHey! I'm Amrit (he/him) and I debated Public Forum for 4 years at the Quarry Lane School and am now a freshman at the University of Washington.
UPDATE FOR NSD Camp Tournament
I CAN NOT evaluate kritiks but I'm very open to theory shells and maybe tricks but run them at your own risk
IF YOU READ A K I WILL DROP YOU WITH 26 SPEAKS
Tech > Truth (If you make the argument that 1+1 = 3 and it is extended properly and not responded to, I will vote on it even though 1+1 = 2)
Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com
I expect all cards for both constructive and rebuttal speeches before the speech is given. Teams that don't do this will have their speaks capped at 27.
Things I like to see in round:
- Frontlining in second rebuttal
- Extending defense and arguments in Summary
- interacting with frontlines when extending defense, do not extend "thru ink"
- doing comparative weighing (explain WHY you o/w on magnitude, timeframe, severity, etc.)
- ^^this is what will decide rounds for me
- no new weighing in second FF, very minimal weighing in first FF, most of your weighing should come in summary (even better if it's in rebuttal)
Speaks:
- +0.5 if you read cut cards in case
- +0.5 if you are disclosed on the wiki with highlights and cites
- Automatic 30 if you read solely from cut cards in both rebuttal and constructive
Progressive:
Shells:
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
Kritiques:
I know less than nothing about these, please do not run unless I'm the only judge on a panel who doesn't know them.
Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)
Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.
Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.
Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.
Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).
Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.
Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.
Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.
Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.
Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.
Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.
Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD debater. kushvijapure13@gmail.com
I had a couple of bids in LD, was the top speaker at harvard, tfa state, and blake, and primarily participated in K v Policy (on both sides) and Theory debates.
People that coached/influenced me heavily:
K - Sai Karavadi, Aidan Etkin, E. Cook
Theory/Phil - Jackson White, Agastya Sridharan, Bodhi Rosen
Policy - Brett Cryan, Fahim Jahingir
Debate:
Pref shortcut
Not a measure of how much I am likely to buy these arguments (I'll buy anything if explained properly) but a measure of how well I can evaluate them
1- K v K + K v Policy (on either side)
1/2 - Policy v Policy, K v Phil (also on either side)
1/2 - Theory debates (I love these)
3 - Aprioris, Skep, Truth Testing Strats, Generic phil like Kant, Hobbes, Butler
3 - Util v anything
4- AC+NC debates thats not Kant v Hobbes or Util v Something else
5/Strike- Dense Phil thats not explained properly
General
I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, regardless of whether the sky is red or blue, if an argument is incoherent lacks warranting or is simply not a good argument the threshold for responses will be lowered, and you should thus be able to answer it well. Punishing a debater for going for a bad argument is certainly worse than punishing a debater for mishandling it!
However, there are some arguments that I cannot vote on, and that is solely because they present a logical fallacy when I try to vote for them. For example, "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" is impossible for me to vote on regardless of whether it is contested because I would have to evaluate the latter speeches' extension of the argument to vote on it. However, "evaluate the debate after the 2NR" would probably be ok to vote on given there is no 3NR in which the negative would have to extend this argument.
During my time in debate I've experienced and learned from many bad decisions. The role of the judge is to evaluate solely the round --- judges not voting for arguments they don't like even though it was a technical crush, repping out based on coaches' poll or debate drills rankings, or just not evaluating the debate on a technical level because they ideologically agree with one side and don't like the other are all things I find atrocious. I will try my hardest not to do any of those things, and I entertain post-rounding to explain why my decision wasn't one of those things.
I reward argument innovation, oftentimes, teams are afraid to try out new strategies and read new arguments because they think it won't play well infront of the judge. I disagree with this logic, I think that one of the best benefits of debate is a rapidly changing meta, thus, I'll reward anyone who introduces me to a new strategic argument
Not only is CX interesting, its one of the most important parts of the debate. K debaters should utilize it to garner offense, paint a ballot story, and explain the link in the latter half of the debate. If you're a policy debater, show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. I hate when teams try to weasel out of hard cx questions, especially when they do it just to make the following speech mishandle it.
Off-spam is chill, and neg terror is good. 1ARs against 10+ off are really when debaters show their true resolve, and against a terror-filled 1NC, Aff teams could read shells, win theory, or even counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 2AR, and impact turn everything).
I believe the burden of proof takes precedence over the burden of rejoinder. Arguments like "no 2NR I-meets" are irrelevant if there is no clear violation.
I will not vote down a 2AR that does not extend the case in a debate that comes down to topicality because I believe that in those debates presumption flips aff.
As for my defaults, its competing interps, no rvis, drop the argument, judge kick (negative advocacies), and presumption and permissibility is topic dependent (you can ask me in round)
The 2AR/2NR is allowed leeway for logical implications: ie: if the 1AR says S-risks outweigh-- then obviously the 2AR gets access to arguments like wipeout. Conversely, if the 1NC reads a link -- the 2NR gets to explain why it turns case.
love theory uniqueness because its a great tiebreaker in most rounds, (as both sides generally agree on the direction of the link --- ie, everyone agrees that a world without alt advocacies would be infinitely harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it a convincing DA against your opponents interp. This could look like multiple things: first there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, aff infinite prep, or 7/4 6/3 block skew, but topic-specific analysis almost always trumps those (ie: "there are only two affs" on the UNCLOS topic or "there are an infinite number of affs" on the open borders topic). Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.
Ks
- Although I primarily k debated in highschool ---- i'm not good for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions --- conversely, I'm very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks
- I LOVE that the meta rn is microaggressions and I will reward good k teams that execute that strategy well (more so if they're aff because i think evenly debated k-aff microagressions lose to tab solves given the 2AR time crunch)
-Neg framework interps should moot the plan K teams that go for a DA + CP strat will almost always lose to the perm double-bind, because if the aff gets to weigh case, extinction probably does outweigh.
- K tricks are goated --- some judges get tired of the death k, fiat k, etc.. but I love it
- taken from archan sen's paradigm "Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.""
Policy
- I think the politics/elections DA is an underutilized tool that is strategic against policy affs.
- I will probably need a little bit of handholding through dense competition debates.
- sufficiency framing doesn't really mean much to me unless there's explanation of what that would look like that is a departure from what i'm already doing
Speaker Points:
Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks
I try to give good points, I'll be more generous if you don't take prep/end the speech early.
My general scale is as follows:
30 --- Top speaker
29.6-29.9 --- Late elims
29.3-29.5--- Mid elims
29-29.3 --- Debating to clear
28.5-28.9--- Even
28.0-28.5 --- Below even
Below 28 --- Other
Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics