Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage MS TOC
2023 — Zoom, CA/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Quarry Lane High School 24
Has debated both policy and pf. (2A and 1N)
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 2 min.
- Just a clarification, I found many teams confused with this part. Speed is okay with me (ie: normal high school/college spreading, so don't read spreading theory against your opponent.), but be clear and be slower at the tag and analytics. Quality>Quantity. (Notice English is my second language. I also spread in debate, but I think spreading ≠ you can be unclear. If you decide to mumble through the cards, I will still go through your speech doc, but I will take off your speaker points.)
- Please Line by line the argument. Don't drop arguments and bring up brand-new stuff in your last speech. If a dropping argument isn't identified for both sides, I will kick it.
- I have no offense with any argument. 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."
- (MS 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 non of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that
- A strong last speech is always important to me. Showing me the way how I should judge this debate always makes my job easier.
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 pls pls pls explain them to me
- I prefer to go more offensive on theory. Same with topicality, competing for interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.
- Since I am 2A, a little bit bias. (ie. I love condo. Shout out to every team who read more than 10 offs against me...
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. (Edit: I hate ontology. 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 impacts for me on the neg are ground and limit. Maybe it's just I am used to be a 2A for k aff, so I prefer the debate to focus more on impact turn subjectivity, education, clash, etc (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 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, it could be a winnable strategy. (Edit: I also run these cps myself, 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)
- Link can be anything in the debate (it can be plan text, language, actor, etc.), but you should explain how Aff representation leads to xxx impact. For Aff, you may attack the link by checking the uniqueness of the K.
- 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.
- 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)
- For KAff only: I have debated k aff throughout my junior year, so I think I am some sort familiar with it. I think k aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time it will end up collapsing on topicality. As a 2A, 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 if you are running any LD-only theory, pls pls pls explain it to me clearly.