Middle School Policy 1104
2022 — Zoom, CA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello! I’m Mira - I’ve competed in policy for 6 years (Taipei American School 2020-2024, University of Michigan 2024-Present)
Email: mirababa@umich.edu
General things:
Tech > Truth
Best for traditional policy debates (process, disads + counterplans, big impact turns)
I do not evaluate anything that happened outside of round. This includes screenshots of chats, allegations vs the other team’s character, etc.
I am very strict on new arguments in the 2AR. I defer to protecting the 2NR, so there should be a clear line between what the 1AR said and the 2AR explanation of it. This means 1ARs must explain the implication of their arguments because if only a tagline extension was made, the 2AR does not get to impact said argument out.
I flow CX, CX is binding
Speaker points:
Speaker point inflation > deflation, so if I give below a 28.5 you were probably mean to either your opponents or partner, clipped, etc. My average falls between 28.7 - 29.5.
Clarity matters a lot more than technical execution when deciding speaker points. This means I often give low-point wins if the losing team was more clear when spreading.
Counterplans:
I love process counterplans a lot more than the average person (maybe a little too much). Please make it very clear what you compete off of and simplify the actions of the counterplan as much as possible in your explanations.
Advantage counterplans are cool but please don't spam like 10000 planks because then it just gets messy :(
I do not judge kick counterplans unless instructed to
Disads:
Every single component of the DA must be extended. I find that 2NRs increasingly forget to extend uniqueness or some other part of the DA (????). Similarly, the 2AC should answer every part of the DA.
Case must be a substantial portion of the 2NR if you are not extending a counterplan when going for the DA. Impact turns case, link turns case, impact happens faster than the aff are all things I am very willing to base a decision on.
Topicality (not framework):
Please overexplain rather than underexplain your interp in t debates, especially because i have limited knowledge on the high school topic. I won’t know what a lot of abbreviations / acronyms are.
Overlimiting is better than underlimiting.
Ground loss is the most convincing standard for me
Kritiks:
Links must be unique to the plan. There needs to be a tangible reason why the aff makes the status quo worse.
Interpretations that do not let the aff weigh their plan is probably bad. I think the most reasonable interp is that the neg gets rep links but the aff gets their impacts
If you are reading anything besides cap, security, or setcol, please overexplain rather than underexplain your links
K affs / Framework:
K affs need to have a connection to the topic and clear solvency mechanism.
Fairness is an impact, not an internal link
TVA > SSD in most debates
PF:
I know nothing about PF and how it is supposed to work. I did PF for 6 months in 2019 but that is about it. Please weigh your arguments and make things as simple as possible for me, thanks!
seva.gaskov@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain!!
she/her
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.
Peninsula '26
peninsulamkdebate@gmail.com
Top Level: Tech > Truth.
No marked copies if it's only one or two cards.
Asking for skipped cards/positions requires prep or cross-ex time.
Time your own stuff and keep track of prep.
Open-cross if fine, don't ask if it is. Don't interrupt your partner.
Disclose at least 20 minutes before the round.
Tech > Truth.
All theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team unless dropped or its condo. I will evaluate the condo debate purely technically.
Good for T, Disads, and all counterplans.
For Middle Schoolers only: If you read a process CP and the other team can't answer it, and then youdon't go for it, and win, I will give you much higher speaks.
Fairness. That's all I'm going to say about kritiks.
Reading any kind of "Pomo" K is the equivalent of speaking Mandarin in front of me: I will claim to know what you're talking about but will only understand 10% of it.
peninsulalilin@gmail.com
The short version:
1. The Aff gets to weigh the plan, the Neg gets links to representations.
2. No risk is 0 or 100. Everything’s probabilistic except for theory questions.
3. Critical affirmatives — will not evaluate T-USFG responses I heard before this year. Only take me if your framework answers are interesting and innovative (see USC KS). Otherwise, affs must read a plan (more thoughts below).
4. Please make the round entertaining, either through argument innovation or performance.
5. Research and topic knowledge are rewarded with higher speaker points. Isolating a path to victory in your final rebuttals will make you win more, which also holds true if you prove to me you’re not just reading blocks straight down.
6. Case specific strategies are golden. DA case is best. Cards are good but irrelevant unless implicated.
7. Conditionality is good. Process counterplans bad. Word PICs bad.
The long version:
1. Framework Ks are a scourge to debate with all this new generation microaggressions, fiat K nonsense. Same for critical affirmatives that say the same stuff on the Aff. Both are uninteresting debate meta arguments only there to test technical debating abilities. K affs don’t have to be boring — USC KS’s framework answers for example are something I can watch over and over again. Therefore, I will not vote on ‘procedural violence’ in a debate round. If you question whether your grey zone argument is considered as part of that calculus, just strike me or don’t read it.
One additional implication is that I will zero fairness defense at the terminal level, and only evaluate internal link defense if in the context of the counterinterp and/or it’s interesting enough separate from “process cps inev” (the exception is if your whole framework approach is innovative and actually interesting).
2. Framework: plan focus is undesirable. Instead, negatives should get to critique the aff, and compete off of a representation (and the Aff should weigh the case).
Two net benefits.
First, link turn to Aff ground. Neg offense becomes aff offense too. When you K a representation of the aff, they can impact turn it, because the neg has made it broader than the affirmative’s defense of it. For example: Aff = capitalist gives you cap good bad external to the 8 minute 1AC you read.
It’s a bit arbitrary, but not unfair. The neg will not run fringe Ks because they still have to beat the case. Therefore, the more central a representation is to the case, the more the K can turn/solve it, the more strategic it is. The bar should usually be: if, assuming this statement in the 1AC was presumed untrue, could the aff’s internal links and scenario still exist? If yes, there’s no link. Otherwise, you get a critique.
Even if fringe, literature based generally check, you can always say impact/internal links defense, and you get free impact turns to the alt. Either way, it’s no worse than a school breaking a new case neg pulling up a fringe section of the topic you never researched. God knows most debaters don’t research literally everything, so the K in this case is not more unfair because you wouldn’t have predicted the random amicus brief turned DA anyways.
Second, education. Link turns clash — reps debates set the basis for critical literature and some really interesting academic discussions. Not gonna rant too long about this because it’s obvious it should be good, no one would read a book because they’d rather scroll tiktok, etc etc.
Maybe also say neg flex, depending on the topic.
This is NOT philosophical competition. Alts must be USFG. The aff gets perms but cant sever certain 1AC reps. If the alt endorses two ideological stances opposite to 2 1AC reps, you can’t sever one of them but you can impact turn both. Whatever is not implicated by the link but is part of the alt can be permutes. The alt is not a policy proposal (unless explained as such).
3. Try or die shouldn’t make sense, but thats an issue with debate itself. It’s a smart argument that takes advantage of debate rules and shenanigans.
No argument is ever 100. We treat it as such for simplicity sake and to heighten the risk and reward associated with genuine clash, but there needs to be something grounded in the real world. Conceding an impact doesn’t mean we’re all dead, it just means that I should act pretty scared because we’re likely to all die soon.
Uniqueness can’t be 100% because then the link wouldn’t matter and your DA would be zero.
Pretty much, saying analytic impact defense is enough to say no try or die. Or “intervening actors solve.” Or (nothing), because no argument is ever 100 and I won’t treat it that way.
4. Risk is probabilistic minus topicality and theory violations, where it’s yes/no. And maybe some other things in certain situations. The exception is hidden theory — always no.
5. “Fairness in this round” doesn’t make sense if you lose your interp.
Presume a normal topicality debate. The way you get to offense is through internal link debating (limits, ground, etc). Fairness is a terminal impact, true, but when a judge votes a side, they don’t actualize an interp or “remedy unfairness,” they just vote for the better interp.
Similarly, if the aff wins their interp, it would be also unfair to vote against them. The ballot remedies no unfairness in this instance. This is EVEN IF the affirmative doesn’t have a fairness terminal impact — because you voting neg doesn’t solve “debatability” (the neg’s real internal link to fairness). If the aff interp is better, I vote aff.
Fairness “internal links” are not in round. “The aff shifted” is a nonstarter because winning the aff’s interp means there’s no impact to that shiftiness. It’s an example of your debatability internal links in the round, but my ballot doesn’t remedy it, just as it doesn’t remedy you introducing topicality in this debate as “no linking the affirmative’s offense on case.” If you lose your interp, the shiftiness becomes legitimate and not something you can vote the other team down on because it was a “topical” action.
An additional implication of this is that clash arguments are underutilized at least as response to things like the fiat K. Because the entire debate should solely be about interpretations, having a straight turn + external offense puts you in a great position.
6. Wipeout as-is is boring. AI, Animal Suffering — I don’t have theoretical qualms against the argument (unlike Ligotti which probably shouldn’t be read), but to make it entertaining, new scenarios are needed.
7. Process CPs are bad for debate. I think debating on IPR has made me appreciate neg ground a lot more, but it’s also made me certain that we don’t need process cps. There’s always SOME argument you can read, SOME offense that’s not just slop. The exception is one that competes off of a word in the plan text, which punishes bad plan writing. As of writing this paradigm — only gone for process 2 times this year (and maybe career). Debate as a whole can do better.
8. Conditionality is good. So is every other counterplan minus process and word PICs.
9. Cards don’t matter unless you tell me they do. Spin, creative analytics matter much more, especially if they demonstrate good background knowledge about the topic.
10. Will not adjudicate out of round questions.
11. Please make the round entertaining. Well executed, case specific strategies will earn very high speaker points. Creative positions will also make me very happy as a judge.
Peninsula '25
If I am adjudicating your debate, may god save you.
I am a stupider, less disciplined, less reliable version of Mike Li. During my brief stint as a mediocre debater, I cut approximately 3 cards per year and none of them were readable. My partner is responsible for upwards of 99% of the success that I had throughout all 7 years of my debate career and wrote all of my speeches. I am approximately equivalent to Gautam Chamarthy.
Peninsula '25
flipped back and forth between LD and policy because I never could make up my mind. As a competitor I was...okay...I was an elim 1 debater.
Policy: Water Resources, NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, IPR
LD: Open Borders, Supreme Court, Housing, Fossil Fuels, MENA, Rehab, Treaties,
I can't evaluate trix, phil, and k affs (out of these 3 I might prefer eval k affs)...but its not impossible to get the W. again plz no trix and I will do everything in my power to try to not vote for HIDDEN aspec.
Feel free to disagree with me but be respectful
Email Chains
Please add me to the email chain - shawnlo0927@gmail.com
Speaking
Speed is fine but CLARITY>> (im def a hypocrite bcuz I was unflowable) slow down on theory if you want me to vote on it.
Making an attempt to slow down against debaters who are clearly lay or novice will +0.3 (that doesn't mean you will get high speaks if you slow down against the bid leader)
Tbh creative rebuttals like drawing a supply and demand graph to explain the reverse oil DAs will increase your speaks
I am a speak fairy (going for a rebuttal thats only theory caps speaks at 28.4
I disclose speaks if I feel like it
Overall
Tech>Truth
Preference: cp-da>common ks (cap, security, imperialism)>topicality>every other k>k affs>phil>trix
"bbu bbut but I said one sentence that multilat solves extinction"
even if something is dropped you still have to minimally explain it
default to judge kick unless condo bad
CPs: slow down on perm competition debates, less likely to vote on process cp bad, if the only NB of the cp is "we solve better" I am SO aff leaning.
DAs: judge instructions and your good, smart analytics can beat badly cut DAs.
Ks: Aff bias on FW, I generally favor middle ground.
Kaffs: Bias against them, a ballot isn't impossible,
ngl im pretty decent at flowing "policy args" and I look for hidden theory but for k fw im ASS
T: no rvi (even if you drop it)
yes on warranted theory...? condo is good.
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 try to make the correct decision. Extremely low tolerance for disrespect. Minimize dead time and read aesthetic cards for high 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. 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. Terrible judge 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: Don't blaze through analytics or at least send them out. 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: Don't understand nor plan to learn high theory literature. "No Plan No Perm" is true. 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. Won't vote on frivolous theory and will dock speaks for wasting time. Ks are fine if links are to the topic.
Tech —>Truth
Better w/ policy evaluation
Have fun, be respectful
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"