Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 1
2022 — Dublin, CA/US
Policy Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)
I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.
Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.
Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.
Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)
Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)
skills (less good)
Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.
Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.
I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.
Quarry Lane High School 24
Has debated both policy (3yrs) and pf (1 yr).
Email Address: email@example.com
I learn everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be
- Tech > Truth
- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad
- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards for each speech.
- Don't steal prep. Please send your speech doc in 1 min.
- Speed is okay with me (ie: normal high school/college spreading, so don't read spreading theory against your opponent pls. it's dumb.) Just be clear and be slower at the tag and analytics. (Notice English is my second language.) Quality>Quantity.
- Please Line by line the argument. Don't drop arguments and bring up brand-new stuff in your last speech.
- I have no offense with any argument. I had run antro and death k myself. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."
- I prefer getting judge kick instruction, but yes I would judge kick.
- (MS/Novice rounds) Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that
- Overview: not a huge fans. just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar, telling me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.
For policy specific:
- I like competing interpretations. Prove to me why your interpretation is better. Go hard on weighing, such as clash, education etc.
- Aff Only: Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.
- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.
- I will vote on theory, but if you are going to run really weird theories you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.
- I prefer to go more offensive on theory. Same with topicality, competing for interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.
- I think the condo is a real winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.
Framework on Case & K
- If there's no counter-framework, I will concede that both teams agree on it.
- If you want to win the framework, please spend time completing frameworks. Don't just extend your card and text repeatedly to me. Give me warrants and impacts on why your framing is better or more important than your opponents' framework.
- FW policy aff vs k: there's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff. but if aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate fw. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)
- Framework vs. K Aff: Fairness can be an impact. I feel like fairness is more likely to turn to education because there's less engagement, negatively reflect, etc. The only two true internal link for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c i hate k v k more)
- I am not a huge case debater, but I probably understand the most popular case on the topic. I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.
- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.
- Follow basic offense + defense pattern
- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.
- My favorite off strat, go on competition
- As a 2A, I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as I 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)
- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." You can read other forms of perms, but I don't think that's a winning strategy. (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)
- Prefer more plan based link.
- Both sides can fiat the alt. Prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important. FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you.
- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives. However, if you drop the perm and your opponent extends it, I will still vote off you. (this is just for the case when the link is not strong)
- Ethic violation: If someone's discourse has been called out as racist, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.
I have debated k aff throughout my junior year, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think k aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statiscally, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run k against k aff, but you are free to run anything else.
- I have no experience with LD debate or topic so I may judge more policy bias. (Cross-apply my policy standards) This means that I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Experience: I debated one year of public forum in 8th grade, policy 9th-current. I go to Quarry Lane.
Do not steal prep! Only typing when timer is running.
You should not be louder than the person giving the speech.
Tech > Truth; I will vote on arguments I don't believe in- will not vote for things like racism good, but will vote for things like warming good, anthro K, etc.
I will dock speaks if you're mean and it makes me less inclined to vote for you in a 50/50.
Speed: Please go slower or be clear. If I don't know what you're saying I won't flow it. Spreading through your analytics makes them unintelligible and they won't be on my flow.
Ts: I'm probably not good for this but will vote on it.
K Affs: I'm probably not good for this. If you're running a K Aff I will need a lot of explanation.
Framework: Probably not unless you make it very clear.
Open cross is fine. If your partner is answering/asking all the questions during your cross it probably won't look good though.
Please do impact calc/framing!
High threshold for voting on condo but if they have a ridiculous amount of off-case will probably consider it and you probably get some new args.
Can be convinced either way on judge kick, if no instruction will default to no judge kick.
Dropped arguments still need to be explained for me to vote on them.
If you're hiding a bunch of theory arguments and waiting for your opponent to drop it and blow it up I will be sympathetic to new answers.
No experience at all. I won't know LD specific arguments and I also don't know the topic. Will judge it like policy. Refer to policy section.
Not up to date on the topic. If you're running policy arguments in PF-style I will probably not be happy but if you run it on a policy level I might be more willing to vote for it.
I like plants.