Pembroke Hill ‘25

3rd year policy debate

Top 5 ranked sophomore nationally ‘23

Add me to the chain: jghuman25@pembrokehill.org

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want, I’’ flow all args

2. tech > truth, but if the debate comes up I expect you to be able to justify it

4. i have run exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy positions and k work on neg (Water, NATO, EI)

5. I don’t like vagueness in debate, but it’s up to the opposing team to hammer in (eg. aspec, funding)

6. Speaks based on how you carry yourself through the round, remaining intact and STRONG defensive/offensive will in cross while remaining composed.

7. Speed is welcome, if analytics not on the doc always appreciated that be shouted out during speech

8. Good judge instruction, just justify properly

9. I love an in depth debate on the theory flow

10. PRO CONDO, but will vote off best articulated standards on the theory page if contended

policy specific:

t:

1. Big fan of t debate

2. limits > ground,

3. Articulate your interp, especially when addressing limits

4. Weigh your interp properly. This isn’t done anywhere close to enough, can win you the t page off an opponent drop

5. I don’t believe T is automatically offense/defense but I’m up to sway by round

6. If t is on the board I want strong framing up front of standards, voters, and impact - how high a priority

7. Don’t like abusive quantity or interps generally, up to opponent to hammer in if they want the abuse claim - stand pretty neutral in round practice

k aff / fw:

1. don’t try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. Stand neutral on clash, fairness, etc.

3. Hit the da head on is always high preferred

4. Number one on the board for me is Impact turns in all points

5. Love P impact debate, not used to its fullest

5. Final rebuttals spending big time on case is a beautiful strat unemployed to its fullest, should ALWAYS weigh impacts to remaining policy contentions in the round when that’s where the debate goes.

6. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> aff hasn’t been tested win on presumption ALWAYS

k v policy:

1. In round impacts must be presented immaculately when contended

2. Fw debate is high strung for me here, but most rounds won’t contend there so don’t view it as necessary to go hard depth, just present arg strong up front and let the debate flow accordingly off it

3. Big value to me in weighing aff epistemologies foremost

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. Card dump on the k should be made concise by the 2nr; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. Like tricks

da:

1. link specificity (date, specificity) debate huge

2. DA + pic out always set the stage for a beautiful combo in my eyes - know how to run them full on together

3. Link debate big for me, but want great impact framing and impact turns are more than welcome

4. Put args in context, same goes for card framing - author interp debate can be good

5. Case turn args applied to the aff i/l's - low risk big reward

cp:

1. Neg should utilize cps to the fullest they can get away with

2. Pic and actor cp plus appropriate accompanying da always phenomenal combo

3. cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff

4. Adv cps can make for an interesting round, but know what you’re running

5. Multi-actor fiat isn’t great in my eyes

7. Dislike consult and delay cps, should be STRONG warrant - even when used for time skew

case:

1. A mostly case 2ar and 2nr especially is my favorite thing in CX if you can manage to frame out the round with them

2. Read ev rehighlights

3. Link debate good but impact framing and turns are the golden path to the ballot

4. 1ar can have appropriate new args - don’t abuse this, it’s a threshold (goes for neg too)

5. A neg flow which condenses big to primarily case at the end of the round is one of my favorite things in policy by far

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

Speaks:

• Be charismatic, debate doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t express yourself strongly to form real change in the real world (do this and you’ll be pleased with your speaks)

• Address the room properly: judges, opponents, audience

I’m currently a senior at the Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. This is my fourth year competing in policy debate and my third year competing in congressional debate.

• 2a/1n

• MSHSAA State Policy 2nd place

Please add me to the email chain or the speechdrop: cmartin24@pembrokehill.org

General Stuff

• Tech > Truth always

• Disclose your evidence! If you have a paper aff you should have extra copies for your opponents and for your judges.

• If you win the round, and genuinely are really good speakers and are at like a 27/28 in speaker points, I'll give you 30s if you make a clever joke.

• I have a really bad resting b*tch face so please don’t mistake that as me actually being pissed.

• Speed: Spreading's fine as long as you're clear. Your opponents should be able to understand what you’re saying! If you spread and I can’t understand what you’re saying then you’re risking my ballot.

• Decorum: I’m all for heated crosses but if it gets to the point where you keep talking purely to run down the clock and keep your opponents from asking more questions then I’m docking your speaker points. That being said you also should not be cutting your opponents off in the middle of their sentence unless it's gotten excessive

• Prep Time: I totally get that tech issues happen sometimes, just show me your screen so I know that you’re not just stealing prep and I won’t count it against you if you’re just having trouble getting your document to send. Other than tech issues, if someone isn’t talking then someone should be running prep.

Policy Section

• DA’s: Love them. They’re great.

1. Make sure you’re reading all for parts ie: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact.

2. I prefer link debates over impact debates but you still need to make sure to do impact calc.

3. Having an aff specific link is key to winning on the disad flow. Otherwise the evidence you read isn’t necessarily true as it’s not actually talking about the aff.

• CP’s: Counterplans are pretty cool. I’ll vote for them if they solve at least part of the aff better.

1. I would avoid delay cp's, they just don't really tend to serve a purpose.

2. Love actor cp’s, but you need to have an actual reason why your actor solves better. Actor cp’s shouldn’t have the same level of effectiveness as the aff, they should solve better.

3. If you read a quid pro quo cp be prepared to debate theory. Same goes for PICs.

• T: I will absolutely vote on T.

1. If you’re going to go for Topicality in the 2nr it should take up pretty much the entire speech.

2. Make sure to have all the parts to a topicality argument ie: interp, violation, standards, voters, etc, otherwise I won’t vote on it.

3. Dropping theory on the aff is almost always an automatic loss.

• K’s:

1. They're cool, just don't drop case.

2. My ballot does not solve in round impacts.

3. Don’t try to make the argument that “If you vote for us we’ll move on to the next round and more people will hear our message!” That’s dumb.

• Case Debate:

1. Analytics can be just as persuasive as evidence

2. I love re-highlighting of aff evidence, that’s the easiest way to win the case debate. If the neg can prove that the aff’s own authors don’t actually agree with what the aff team is saying, I will definitely lean neg on the case page.

3. Don't read new in 2. ie don't read off case args in the 1nc and put all the case args in the 2nc, that's a massive time skew. That being said, IF the neg brings up new arguments in the 2nc, I don't mind if the aff reads arguments on it in the 1ar even if it counts as a "new argument."

pembroke hill '24

add me to the chain: joconnell24@pembrokehill.org

fourth year of policy debate

tl;dr

1. you do you -- read what you want and I'll flow it -- "I think have a higher bar for a complete argument that the average judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion." -- Jimin Park

2. impact weighing and judge instruction is important

3. i ran exclusively policy positions on the aff and a mix of policy and k on the neg (CJR, Water, NATO, FR)

4. this topic seems to have an issue with plan vagueness and i don't really want to vote for a team who doesn't know what their plan really does or how it is funded

5. i like debate a lot. i watch a lot of debates, read a lot of paradigms, look at a lot of research outside of debate, etc. i'll do my best to come to a good decision, but always err on the side of over explanation

6. disclosure is good.

policy specific:

t:

1. love a good t debate

2. limits > ground

3. "The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu

4. people don't do enough impact comparison and explanation of how their interp solves the other side's offense

5. i don't think T is automatically offense/defense but obviously can be persuaded otherwise

6. i really like emory gk vs minnesota pr ndt '22

k aff / fw:

1. do not try to resolve things you can't reasonably impact

2. i don't think i have a preference on clash, fairness, etc.

3. go for the impact turn sure, but id still prefer you make responses to das.

4. "The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained." -- maddie pieropan

5. "The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best" -- Arnav Kashyap

6. turns case are good. clash is a prereq to actualizing the aff >>>>>>>>> assume the aff is false because we couldn't test it

7. not experienced in k v k debates; will need a lot of explanation and judge instruction if the neg k is not cap; i have no huge preferences on perm/no perm but the aff will need to do more than just saying "no perms in a method v method debate"

a. i also think alt distinction is important, no matter how big your link is

k v policy:

1. this is where i spend the most time thinking about debate outside of rounds

2. not super comfortable with pomo or stuff like that

3. i care about framework more than most i think, but general default is affirmatives get to weigh the aff but have to defend their epistemologies; recently a lot of judges are strongly against a middle ground-interpretation but i think i'm more amenable to that

4. please debate the case, unless you're way ahead on why you don't have to

5. make smart choices and go for the right stuff; f/w + link, link is a da + try or die for the alt. you get the idea

6. From Kenji Aoki: "I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik"

7. tricks are cool

da:

1. link specificity and contextualization is key

2. i generally like a good ptx da, but i'm not comfortable adjudicating debates around certain ptx theory

3. i don't really believe in "any risk of the link"

4. i typically thing impact turning is unhelpful here -- i'd prefer you spend your time on the link/uq level, particularly making arguments about which controls the other

5. turns case arguments are very persuasive when applied to the i/l's of the aff

cp:

1. imo affs let the neg get away with way too much on cps

2. that being said, i think functional pics are a great way to gain offense--especially if you have a well-researched and specific solvency advocate

3. the cp doesn't need to solve all of the aff and i often find solvency threshold debates trivial

4. adv cps often seem illogical -- but i like them and think they are super fun

5. the textual/functional model seems generally good to me

6. condo is mostly good, multi-actor fiat is mostly bad

7. consult and delay cps are probably bad

8. i will always default to judge kick unless convinced otherwise -- exception is i won't judge kick in order to vote on presumption

case:

1. underutilized

2. read the rehighlights

3. i feel pretty amenable to some new 1ar arguments

4. i love impact turn debates thanks to truman connor

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

pfd:

1. not experienced

2. i know plans aren't allowed, but depending on the topic, being pro can sound like advocating for one -- doesn't mean con can go for a cp

3. teams should always be reading some sort of framework for how i should evaluate the round

4. i will probably evaluate like a policy debate

ld:

1. not experienced here either

2. i think plans and cps are allowed?

3. I'll probably evaluate v/vc, ks, cps, etc. very similar to a policy round

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

things that boosts speaks:

1. being funny -- debate is supposed to be fun

2. well-organized docs

3. smart analytic arguments

4. clever rehighlightings

5. taking strategic risks

things that lower speaks:

1. being rude

2. being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. (probably an auto-L)

3. actively removing analytics

4. stealing prep

5. i keep seeing teams orally feed each other words in rebuttal speeches and it's getting excessive imo. it's hard to listen to two people talk at once. i'd rather the partner just tell me than say it and have their partner repeat it. write a block if you have to, but like... i think the 2xr should be able to expand on what the 1xr is trying to tell them on their own without having to be fed every single word

OV

Hi! I am currently a junior at the Pembroke Hill School, making it my third year competing in debate. Since it's Missouri, I compete primarily in local tournaments in CX, but have tried a few national circuit tournaments. Note that I say "probably" in a lot of these opinions so they could be changed and aren't definitive.

Add me to the email chain: lryan25@pembrokehill.org

TLDR/TOP LEVEL

1. Tech > Truth; BUT you need to warrant out your claims and I'd prefer if there is at least some truth to your arguments.

2. I can keep up with some speed, but will also be following along on the speech docs & flowing, so if you plan on going fast send your analytics. I cannot keep up with the faster TOC debates.

3. I tend to prefer policy arguments over kritikal arguments & will understand them easier, BUT don't be afraid to read a K, you just may have to explain it more.

4. AFFs should defend the resolution. This isn't to say I will auto-vote you down for K-AFFs, but I don't think my ballot solves in round impacts, so keep that in mind.

5. Don't be mean in cross and try not to talk over each other, but I get that it can be heated.

6. Don't steal prep. I'm sympathetic to tech issues but I will need to see your screen.

7. You tell me what the ROB and the role of the judge is. I'm inclined to say that it's to be a policymaker and to weigh the world of the AFF vs. the status quo/world of the neg, but can be convinced otherwise.

8. Email = Speechdrop > Flash Drive >>> Paper >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We don’t disclose”

9. Don't read the bathtub analogy. Or the chair equivalent.

DA

1. I enjoy these and spent a lot of time going for DA/CP as a 2NR.

2. Specific links are key to winning the DA as the negative team, but the more vague/poor at explaining the AFF is, the more credence I give to generic links.

3. Impact calculus is definitely important in the 2NR. If you go for a DA, you really need to explain why I care that passing the AFF causes something bad to happen.

CP

1. Best when paired with a DA (or a case turn, I guess).

2. If you are reading more than 3 CPs, I'm going to give condo to the AFF unless you can really defend it. Otherwise, I feel like I'm slightly AFF leaning on condo, but don't let it scare you from reading multiple CPs.

3. Delay CPs and Consult CPs are probably cheating (especially on this topic).

4. Default to judge kick the CP, but could be convinced otherwise.

5. Similar to DAs, the more specific to the AFF the CP the better.

6. Multi-actor fiat, excessive perms (4+), and excessive planks (7+) are probably bad.

K

1. Least familiar with these, only have ever run & gone for Cap K, so you need to over explain them (especially the more confusing ones).

2. Yes, the AFF gets their impacts (unless you are very good at convincing me otherwise). Yes, debate is probably a game (otherwise what are we doing?) No, my ballot probably doesn't solve in round impacts (so having a clear alt other than "reject the aff" is important).

3. Please crystallize K debates by the 2AR/2NR and don't try to extend everything across the flow.

4. Very unfamiliar with K v K debates so you will need to do A LOT of explaining the nuances of your competing frameworks and crystallize to get me to understand at the end of the debate. I don't want to be sorting through all my flow paper at the end of the debate when you didn't send your blocked out FW analytic

T

1. Default to competing interpretations, but can understand and be persuaded to reasonability. Please explain how winning this helps you win the debate. In similar fashion, NEG teams please explain how winning your interpretation helps you win the debate and the violation.

2. Don’t read too many short, blippy T-violations. More than 2 is kinda sketchy unless the AFF is clearly not topical.

3. T is not an RVI, I don’t care what you say.

4. Don’t cheat with sketchy highlighting on T cards. Please actually make it worth our time.

CASE DEBATE

1. These are definitely under-utilized (especially in more flow rounds), but having good defense and impact turning the AFF can be a winning strategy.

2. I think that as the negative you can definitely pick apart some of the vague, big stick AFFs and some the weird soft-left AFFs with good case debate.

3. Re-highlighting ev is great! But you have to read it, don't just insert it.

That’s all!

be nice to each other and try your best!

I am a junior attending Pembroke Hill, and this is my third year of policy debate and second year of congressional debate.

Add me to any email chains you make: cwood25@pembrokehill.org

Tl;dr

Idc what you do or don't read, just make it make sense

Tech > truth, although I do value truth almost the same

LOVE impact calculus and at least touch on stock issues

I like analytics and smart re-highlighting of cards the opposition used

Not a huge fan of spreading-- if you do make sure you have either email chain/speechdrop

Make sure i can understand you when you talk

BE NICE in cx

Pls flow-- it's obvious when you don't

NEG:

Make sure that you spend enough time debating on case, don't just forget it in favor of off case

Don't make a ton of arguments just to kick most of them, that's a waste of my time and your time

AFF:

KNOW YOUR AFF, don't get tripped up on simple questions about your case

I don't really like K affs but you do you ill put aside my bias if you do a good job debating

Make sure your advantages outweigh and win the stock issues

Policy Specific:

T:

t’s are fine with me, i can enjoy the debate if its done correctly and if the framework isn't widely out there and i will vote on it if the AFF is clearly untopical (or if you just argue it better than the other team)

NEG: you rlly need to prove to me why your interpretation is correct and better, have good violations

Don't waste your time reading it if your just gonna kick it tho

DA:

Personally i love DA’s they make a ton of sense to me

don't just be reading non-specific and generic just to put one in, if your gonna read one make it case-specific and intentional

CP:

CP’s are fine, but I won't JUST vote on the CP

Not a juge fan of PIC cp’s, but if you do a good job debating it i will consider

Condo cps are fine, i hate consult and delay cps

also don’t really like generic cps, if your gonna do one make it case specific or at least have good link

Idc if you kick it

K’s:

Not a huge fan, i don't have a lot of experience with them

Although I lean more towards traditional debate if their is clear clash and the thesis of the argument is clear i will vote on it

Easier to win me over using other debate strats

Earning Speaker Points:

Overall being a nice person

Tbh if you actually look like you want to be there

Eye contact (esp in the last speeches)

Good analytics

Losing Speaker Points:

Being rude or mean during a round

Any comments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc

Stealing prep (although I am usually pretty lenient with this)