i'm sticking to a 10 second synopsis of my thoughts because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing a whole paragraph:

policy:

email: mirab2508@gmail.com

pf:

- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary

- don't just read 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.

- be nice pls

seva.gaskov@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain!!
she/they

Mamaroneck High School '20, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School '23, Arizona State University 27', 5th year debater

Spreading
Go ahead, I am fine with high speed as long as you are clear. I will try my best to flow everything but if you're unintelligible, I can't guarantee that I will be able to hear everything.

Tech vs. Truth
I am a tabula rasa and tech judge and I will vote on whatever is on the flow as long as it's not offensive.

Policy vs. K
I am fine with most kritiks. If I don't understand what your K says, I won't vote on it, so if you run Baudrillard, explain it well.

In K aff debates, I will usually prefer neg on framework unless it's debated poorly. Also, I want you to make it clear how an aff ballot solves.

Impacts
I am fine with either big stick or soft left impacts, just make sure to prove why your impact outweighs.

T
I am fine with T debates but unless the aff is clearly abusive, I will prefer reasonability. Either way, make sure to have a lot of good evidence and comparison.

DAs
Make sure to have all parts of your DA - uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will treat the takeout of any single part of the DA as the takeout of the entire disad. So if the aff proves you don't link or that your DA is non-unique, I will vote aff on the DA. Give a clear story and do impact calc to explain why your DA outweighs.

CPs
I am fine with any CPs as long as there is a net benefit. I will disallow a type of CP only if the aff proves it's bad on theory.

Theory
I will vote on any theory but explain your standards and impacts well.

Speaks
30: You did something that really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to your speeches. I have no doubt that you will win the tournament.

29 - 29.9: You did really well and your speeches were very interesting. You will most likely win the tournament or at least get to semifinals.

28.5 - 28.9: You did well and you had good speeches that made you win. You will likely break.

28 - 28.5: You did average and there are a lot of improvements to be made. Perhaps you were not clear or your speeches were messy. You could break.

27-28: You did badly and you need a lot of improvement. I will usually not give those speaks unless I really think that you messed up really badly in your speech. You would also get those speaks if you were unintelligible or if your speech didn't make sense.

27 and less: You probably said something that was offensive and made the debate really unpleasant for either me or your opponents.

peninsulamkdebate@gmail.com

I will only vote on death good.

nanruili2025@gmail.com

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

Brendan Poon

Polytechnic '24

Stanford '28

MSPDP:

- When making a decision, I ask myself 2 questions: 1) which impacts matter the most (weighing)? and 2) which impacts does each side access (clash)? The team that accesses the impacts that matter the most wins.

- The best debates are ones where both sides go back and forth over specific arguments. The worst debates are ones where both sides ignore each other.

- This probably shouldn't have to be said, but arguments must have warrants. Saying "x causes y" isn't an argument; saying "x causes y because z" is.

- The more POIs you can give, the better.

- I don't like heckling. If you want to heckle during a constructive, you should ask a POI instead. If you want to heckle during a rebuttal, please keep it respectful and relevant. If it's clear that you're just heckling to interrupt the speaker, your speaker points will suffer.

- Burdens can be strategic but are usually arbitrary.

- Above all, be respectful and have fun!

TLDR: Time yourself and do what you do best, and I will make my best effort to make a decision that makes sense. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Do not say death is good. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for higher speaks. Be nice, stay hydrated, and have fun!

Email: Add poodog300@gmail.com. Set up the chain before the round starts and include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject. Will start prep if you are taking too long. Please take the two seconds it takes to name your file something relevant to the round.

AFF Things: Know what you are defending and stick to it. I will vote on any theory push if debated well enough, but most things are reasons to reject the argument. Very bad for non-resolutional K AFFs.

CP/DA Things: #Stop1NAbuse. CPs should have solvency advocate(s). I think competition debates are fun. Not a fan of UQ CPs. Politics is always theoretically legitimate. Can vote on zero-risk.

T Things:Not the best so don't blaze through analytics. Explain what your model of debate would look like. Outweighs condo and is never an RVI. Plan text in a vacuum is silly but I will vote on it.

K Things: Agree with JMH: policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. No good in K v. K. I will be very unhappy if you read a K in a Novice/JV division or against novices. Debate is a game and procedural fairness is an impact.

PF/LD Things: Paraphrasing is fine if you have evidence that can be provided when requested. Will not vote on frivolous theory or philosophy tricks. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.

Nice People: Debnil. Both Morbecks. Michael B. Cerny. Steve Yao. Delta Kappa Pi.

Mean People: Eloise So. Gatalie Nao. Chase Williams. Kelly Phil. Joy Taw.

usefordebate1@gmail.com

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.

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula, OCSA

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

Pre-Round: Do whatever you need to do to win, my argumentative preferences marginally affect your chances at winning relative to dramatic strategic adjustments.

Top Level:

1. Tech > Truth. Flow (straight down) > evidence (preference for comprehensiveness & conclusiveness over other metrics, but amenable to judge instruction) > intervention (unmade cross-applications, etc.). Intervention is a result of interpretive ambiguity - judge instruction, warrant comparison & argument implication minimize this.

*Won't intervene or reject arguments automatically, but amenable to argumentative clarity objections to a punitive tech > truth model. Embedded theory arguments, floating PIKs & argumentative extrapolations not clearly based in evidence justify entirely new answers.

2. Topic knowledge for fiscal redistribution is medium-high. I've judged a lot of debates and am involved with Peninsula but moreso in strategy than research.

3. Clash is good. Demonstrate topic knowledge, consolidate the debate early & read more evidence. You will 'have my heart' & be rewarded with speaker points. This is my only 'strong' opinion and frames the rest of my thoughts about who 'should' win a debate.

Content:

1. Topicality. Affs designed around clash-avoidance should lose to T, but otherwise, going for T is susceptible to reasonability.

2. Counterplans. Better for the aff on theory & competition than most. The aff should center reasons the counterplan doesn't answer the 1ac / is anti-educational & the neg should center fairness in their defense. Impact calculus & interpretive integrity (clarity regarding what counterplans are included / excluded) matter.

3. Disads. The link often matters more than uniqueness (think: a 40% chance of Biden winning in the status quo is still a 40% risk of extinction if the link is true). Narrative coherence & try or die matter.

4. Kritiks. Preference for at: case outweighs is answer the case > util k > alt solves > framework. Aff answers to framework need to center a defense of a model of debate (vs. clash) or a unique impact intrinsic to topicality (vs. fairness). Good for both debate good + clash & no link to debate bad + fairness.

5. LD. Relatively new to judging & exclusively competed in policy. No objection to substantive philosophy, but lack institutional memory. 'Tricks' are terrible for clash and unlikely to prove successful in front of me, especially given this activity's issue with clarity & argumentative incoherence (won't flow off the doc).

Hi I'm Jordan Y. As of right now I am in 6th grade.

I have been doing policy and PF for 1 year.

PF tournaments: 4

Policy tournaments: 7

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

If you are running critical/performance arguments, please be familiar with the argument and able to intellectually defend it. My personal preference when I debate is usually policy-oriented discussions and my personal bias is that switch-side policy debate is good, but I don't let this inform my decision in the round. At the same time, I think that non-traditional forms of debate are an important component of the community and have an important message to broadcast, and as such, I have voted for performance affs in the past.

The following is a preference and not a requirement. It is common for me to judge teams running non-traditional forms of arguments and personally be unfamiliar with the literature base. Thus, it is probably in your interest to ask if I'm familiar with a non-traditional argument prior to the round unless you plan to explain it extensively in the round. An argument is inherently less persuasive when the messenger also does not fully understand it, and the debate is probably less educational for everyone involved as a result. In general, I think you should be familiar with any argument you read before you deploy it in-round, but I've found this is more frequently an issue when high school debaters deploy the critical literature base. If I don't think you are familiar with your argument, I won't hold it against you in my RFD (although it will inform my speaker points), but it will probably influence whether you are able to effectively deploy the argument on the flow, where I will vote.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the RFD should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

(Credit to Tyler Prochazka for the awesome paradigm)

"Made by Jordan Y 5/11/2020"