GGSA Debate 1 LD PF Policy
2023 — Oakland, CA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUse debate@student.quarrylane.org and title the email chain adequately.
T/L
Been in debate for 4 years.
Don't have all that many hardcore preferences that aren't resolved by better debating.
Case Debate
Good case debate will especially get you good speaks---especially applicable to 2AC case debating; 'not reading new cards bc 2ac messed up' are words you should not want to hear.
DA
Implicate how different parts of the da interact with the advantage, how much of each par the da you need to win --- is any risk of a da sufficient given a solvent cp? Does turns case make any risk of a link sufficient? does dropped link mean that probabilistic uniqueness is irrelevant?
CP
Just like above; contextualize to what extent you need to win a net benefit in comparison to a solvency deficit.
Not great for textual plus functional as an interp. Better for function alone. Alright for textual alone.
Permutation do the counterplan > intrinsic perm
As a fellow 2A, I'll be sympathetic to theory, and think it's less arbitrary than most.
Lack of solvency advocate certainly justifies new 1AR answers.
T
My second favorite type of debate.
Impact calculus is key.
Aff vs K
Good link/link turns case, contextualized alt solvency to the 1AC, and case debating seem the optimal way to do it if this is your strategy.
Framework typically decides these debates so developing diverse offense for the neg would be the way to go; I'll be technical in determining and won't "It was a wash" my way out of it.
Neg vs K
Pick fairness or clash early on so you can develop offense; having both often conflict with one another, i.e going for the 'this ballot doesn't spill out; neg on presumption' 'debate doesn't change subjectivity' in tandem with 'voting neg iteratively spills up to models of debate as the community changes' seem to clash with one another; I think that negs need a mechanism of spilling out if going for models. This means starting the question of what my ballot does early, and being definitve about it.
TVA/SSD are great ways to mitigate AFF exclusion offense and thus should be well-developed; a good 1NR on TVA with solvency debating, impact calculus, puts a lot of pressure on the 1AR.
NOVICE / JV / MS
Make sure I can hear every word you're saying. this is a time to be getting better, and improving so demonstrate you've put in the slightest of effort.
I've judged these and it usually comes down to impact calculus, line by line, or resolving so if you've done all three well your speaks start at 29.
Misc
I only start flowing from the 1NC on case.
I won't look at docs unless a piece of evidence is explicitly disputed/brought up in a final rebuttal.
Number plz.
FR is NEG biased.
SPEAKS scale(stolen):
- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated
- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you
- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award
- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break
- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches
- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors
- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors
- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team
- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6
- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are
- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive
Add aamin[at]thecollegepreparatoryschool[dot]org to the chain please!
I'll try to keep this pretty brief since I'll vote for anything if it's won technically. I'll decide the debate solely based upon the flow. All arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact to be considered as such. Evidence quality is important, but I will not do the work for you.
That being said, the following are my predispositions, and they can be overcome with good enough debating.
Planless affs— you don't need a plan to win my ballot, a clear solvency mechanism can help.For FW v. K aff — fairness can be an impact, probably more amenable to skills/clash/etc. but do as you do. For the aff, fine for both a C/I or an impact turn strategy. Fine for a K v. K debate as well, K affs almost certainly get perms.
Kritiks (on the neg)— The most persuasive kritiks use framework args that try to moot the plan. Framework is almost never "a wash", middle-ground framework interps help nobody. Specific link analysis goes a long way, re-highlightings of aff evidence too. "Case turns K" arguments need specific warrants as to how unresolved aff impacts outweigh.
Counterplans— Good for "cheaty" process counterplans and advantage counterplans with far too many planks. Will default to judge kick if nobody says anything. Most CP theory is a reason to justify intrinsic perms, etc, not reject the team.
Disads— No real unique thoughts here. The agenda disad is fake but that doesn't mean it's an unstrategic argument.
Theory— Tough sell on conditionality bad. Tougher sell on disclosure theory. Most theory interps are far too arbitrary.
Misc.— High bar for new 2AR arguments. I flow cross-ex. Prep time ends when the doc is sent. Try to minimize dead time as much as possible throughout the debate.
For Novices, in particular:
Flowing well is doing yourself a massive favor— don't be the person who responds to something that was in the doc but wasn't actually read.
Extensions aren't just the tag and author name— you need warrants.
Impact calculus/comparison is absolutely critical, both this and argument extension can fall apart in the rebuttals. Please don't make that happen.
Write by ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR, identify which are the central questions of the debate.
Try to minimize dead time and keep the round moving.
And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out over email or before/after the round.
Thank you for the opportunity to volunteer and help our students. It has been wonderful and insightful to see their presentations. I hope my comments and suggestions can help them with their overall tournament journey and progress.
Hi! My name is Sanjana and I'm a senior at Quarry Lane on the PF team.
Please add me to the email chain: sanabajaj21@gmail.com
- Tech > Truth
- Speed: I'm comfortable with a fast pace as long as you're clear. Please signpost (moving to their case, on their first contention, etc.) and be organized in your speech
- Evidence: Send speech docs w/ cut cards for case and rebuttal
- Please collapse strategically on your own contentions as well as your responses to your opponent's case. The debate should ideally be narrowed down after each speech (quality > quantity!)
- Completely extend any piece of offense (UQ, links, impacts) & defense through summary AND final focus for it to be evaluated. No brand new arguments should be made in second summary or final focus.
- Make sure to frontline in second rebuttal/first summary
- Comparative weighing (link & impact) is super super important. Don't just restate your impacts, explain why they come first. I'll evaluate arguments with the strongest weighing first.
- Progressive arguments: I do have some experience debating theory (disclosure good & paraphrasing bad) and would try my best when judging these debates! Don't read any frivolous theory. I have very little experience w/ Ks so I wouldn't be the best judge for that.
Always be respectful to your opponents! And it should go without saying but don't read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, as those won't be evaluated.
Debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com
I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.
About me
Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my first year as an assistant coach for College Prep.
I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.
Top Level
**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed ****
Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.
The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.
When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.
Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:
Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.
Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.
Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.
Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.
Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.
Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.
Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.
Lowell 23' Berkeley 27'
Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains and tournaments.
TLDR: Speed is fine but clarity > speed. Prefer a policy debate instead of a K v K debate.
Background: Hi, I'm Michael. I was a 2A/1N at Lowell High School. Jenny Liu has carried me as my 2N/1A partner, with both of us under the watchful eye of the Mr. Debnil Sur. Don't call me judge to quote the person who dragged me into policy "I am at most three years older than you, and am a child myself."
Circuit
Topicality: Sure. I evaluate T through competing interpretations. Reasonability is not a real argument ... unless it's dropped ...
K Affs: Limited experience. Too often in these debates there is not clear warranting / impacting of things like fairness, clash etc. The team with the better high level storytelling and clearer explanation of arguments that matter will pick up my ballot.
Neg K: Framework Ks are awesome! Ks with an alt are cool too, but it seems that the alt never gets developed or explained sufficiently to overcome the status quo. Affirmatives that exploit this and negatives that explain why this doesn't matter (dropped, floating pics, having an actual alt that overcomes the links) will have a stronger chance of picking up my ballot.
CP: adv cp and offsets look pretty good for this topic; would love to see a case specific cp with a decent solvency advocate, +0.2 speaks if you have a case specific cp with a rehighlighted piece of their ev that says your plan solves (and the rehighlighting actually says what you want it to say).
DA: Sure, I'll vote on them if your ahead, generic links are bad but it doesn't matter if the 1AR drops them, explain why your impact outweighs. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad DAs can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.
Case: I think that evidence comparison on the case page just did not exist for the NATO topic. More likely to be convinced by smart analytics and evidence rehighlightings then impact defense alone. Warrant comparison is so important -- make the 2AR actually have to spend time on the case page pls!!
CX: I flow it so use it to poke holes and get concessions. Don't be rude, cutting people off is fine but do it in a polite way. Open CX is cool.
Condo: More sympathetic to the AFF then typical. Would much prefer to judge a well warranted and high clash 3-off debate than a 11-off 1NC where the 2AC gets like 4 arguments on every flow at best.
Friv T: I view it as a reason to reject the argument not the team.
+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round!!
+0.1 for your team if you title one of your docs "lay-debate-is-not-dead".
+0.2 if you make a funny joke about Debnil, Jessie, Taylor, Taytum, Eloise, Win, or Jenny (the seven of them have taught me everything I know about debate so you can look at their paradigms if you really want to understand where I am coming from as a judge).
Holiday Special -- +0.1 if you promise to give one of your teachers a thank you card, to do this before your constructive (1AC, 1NC, 2AC, 2NC) tell me which teacher you are giving it to, and give me a sentence or two on why they deserve a card :)
Policy (Lay / GGSA): Circuits fine if both teams agree to do so, throughout my career there have been too many circuit teams that agree to a lay debate and then run 10 off -- it's not cool.
Ethos matters! Looking at me instead of your computer can get you a long way especially when writing my ballot in the 2nr or 2ar.
Case in a lay debate setting: Honestly totally go for case with me, I have a pretty high threshold that the aff has to pass, if you can prove to me beyond the preponderance of the evidence that the aff can't solve or access their impacts I'll vote for you. Use their ev against them. If you are going for just case in the 2nr say at the top "Russell Brand would vote on stock issues so you should too" it will remind me that GGSA is a lay tournament so I can pull the trigger on solvency, plus it will boost your speaks 0.1
Parli stuff:
Ethos > logos; I'm sorry but if your doing parli I have 0 respect for your ev so I vote on your rhetoric and delivery of arguments.
That said make your arguments logical not going to vote on something insanely stupid just because you said it well.
Perms are a test of competition, running one in 2a does not lock you into it for the VI.
I'll strike new arguments but call a POO the first time they make one, I'll say taken into account and be strictly looking for new arguments through out the rest of the VI. That said if your wrong I'll be very sad so make sure your right that it's new.
+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round.
+0.1 if you make a joke about anyone who's done Lowell parli
Hi, I’m a parent judge
Please send email chain out to amlischan@hotmail.com before starting.
I prefer clarity over speed, spreading is not recommended.
I prefer policy arguments rather than K-debates
Fine with tag team cross x
quarry lane '26
any pronouns
top level
tech > truth; i will judge off the flow and intervene as little as possible. do whatever it takes to win. flesh out your arguments in the rebuttals. compare evidence. give judge instruction.
speed is fine. clarity is better. slow down on analytics and tags. something i've been told is to put a decently chunky card at the top of your 2ac blocks to give the judge pen time.
explanation is more important to me than evidence, and i will only go back to read ev if necessary.
don't insert evidence; i will only evaluate it if you read it.
smart cx questions are deadly and will be rewarded.
be respectful and have fun :)
theory
voting issues are typically a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
not the greatest judge for condo/theory in general, but if you choose to extend it, explain it well and do good impact calculus. i'll assume dispo means you can kick the cp if the aff reads perms or theory unless you define it otherwise.
efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely.
don't read hidden aspec/theory.
t
i default to competing interpretations. have a lot of evidence and make sure you're comparing evidence quality.
reasonability is convincing against contrived t violations, but i'm not great at evaluating it. we meet is a yes/no question. caselists are very helpful.
k
haven't dug very deep into k literature. i'm better for more common/straightforward k's (cap, security, setcol), but better explanation overcomes most barriers.
i am agnostic on framework, but i'm sympathetic towards 2ar recontextualizations bc 1ars on fw are painful. i am especially sympathetic to 1ar args when the block is sloppy on line-by-line and makes vague cross-apps from the overview.
the link debate is super important -- be specific to the aff and explain why the two worlds are incompatible. "whoever talks about the aff more in a kritik round usually wins."
alt explanation is so crucial too -- what does the alt actually do? if the alt can solve a majority of the aff, that lowers the threshold for the link soooo much. root cause explanation also helps a ton.
cp
case-specific and advantage counterplans are really fun. i prefer functionally competitive cps with solvency advocates, but do whatever it takes to win.
i'm neutral on cp theory, but if the cp has good solvency advocates, i err neg. smart perms will be rewarded.
give instructions for sufficiency framing and judge kick. i default to no judge kick.
presumption flips aff if you go for a world, but i can be persuaded by "less change" or "neg flex" means presumption is neg warranting.
da
impact calc is great. turns case analysis is super important, but don't overdo it because it's largely irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.
k affs
very fascinating. t-usfg, cap k, and piks make the most sense to me.
i prefer clash as an impact to t, but choose wisely based on the aff and their strat. smart tvas access and mitigate the aff's offense and helps 2nr analysis so much.
misc
post-round me! i think it's really educational.
don't steal prep. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.
if you find an ethics violation pre-round, please tell your opponents. treating it like an in-round strategy is a terrible model for debate.
see the paradigms of christopher thiele,yao yao chen,and eleanor barrett for more details.
Hi! I'm Kaelie. I'm a junior and have been doing policy since freshman year. Also did 2 years of middle school parli debate.
Put me on the email chain! mykaelac2025@headroyce.org
Just do what you do best, I understand it's hard to stand up and speak to a bunch of strangers. I am pretty open to all types of arguments as long as you can explain them to me.
I read a K aff on the aff and usually go for Ks and T on the neg, but I should be able to hold my own judging DAs and CPs.
I'll probably be able to hear you at most speeds, but if you think you're going too fast, you probably are. Make sure to be clear and sound confident.
Good luck and make sure to have fun!
Middle School Debate
PLEASE SIGNPOST FLOWING'S ALREADY HARD DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME!
POIs and heckles
- Love them, so please do it as often as you can (obviously stick to the rules). I think its super important for the clash in the debate and shows me you're engaged and listening to your opponents' speaking.
Impacts/Weighing
- It's super important to me to have fleshed-out impacts and do impact comparisons. I want to know why your assertions matter more than theirs and evaluate debates based on who has done a better job explaining why bigger/more probable impact under their weighing mechanism.
- Weighs, when done well, can be works of art. I love weighs that are engaging and persuasive. PLEASE do weighing mechanism comparison, it makes my job so much easier as a judge.
Evidence
- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP RANDOM SOURCES -- I CAN TELL WHEN YOU MAKE UP A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!
Refutations
- These are probably one of the hardest things to do in a round, but a good refutation will put you far ahead in the debate. I like refutations of the flow, and please at least try to refute the arguments, even if its just with your own points.
Speaking
I have a pretty high threshold for speed. That said, please don't go too fast, slow down and articulate each word.
Debate is a fun activity so please be nice and don't be disrespectful.
*****This is my first time judging a debate round.
I will do my best but please be patient with me.
I ask that everyone be respectful to each other.
Adding lightness, and humor is a big plus for me.
I judge debates based on the following criteria:
· Argumentation:I look for debaters who have well-developed arguments that are supported by evidence. I also value debaters who are able to think critically and respond to their opponents' arguments effectively.
· Delivery:I value debaters who are clear, concise, and engaging in their delivery. I also look for debaters who are able to use their voices and body language effectively.
· Evidence:I value debaters who use credible and relevant evidence to support their arguments. I also look for debaters who are able to analyze and evaluate evidence effectively.
I believe that all debaters should be treated with respect. I will judge the debaters based on their performances, not on my own personal beliefs or opinions.
4th year on the Circuit
add me to the email chain: kyle.du@student.quarrylane.org
tech > truth
send speechdocs for constructive and rebuttal before speech, helps me flow the round
second rebuttal should frontline offense and have defense
extend args you're going for in every speech; not in one speech = dropped
no new weighing in second FF, no new args/evidence in ffs
signpost for all of your speeches, offtime roadmaps are good too
interact with opponents' frontlines and rebuttals. don't just repeat your own args
solid time allocation, efficiency, clarity, enthusiasm = good speaks
weigh. tell me why you your impacts matter more, why I should vote for you
im okay withspeed. if you think you go too fast though please send me speechdocs
I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.
feel free to postround me -- Ithink it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.
not too familiar with theory and K's, run at your own risk
Email - jhong@shcp.edu
In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and a debate coach at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.
Notes specific to policy:
-It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges.
-Tabula rasa, as much as possible. Most familiar with fascist "USFG should" debates, but I'm willing to vote for alternative role of the ballot arguments. Love to see the dying art of stock issues, if that's your thing.
-I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science.
-In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties.
-Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.
I'm a flay judge. Little to no experience with debate theory, but I can catch on to almost everything, so run those cool arguments (but obviously stay respectful, don't internalize bigotry through running debate args that minimize someone else's humanity).
siddharth.kohli@sonomaacademy.org
2a/1n
varsity @ sonoma '26
run anything and have fun! do technical debating and write my ballot!
Some debaters/ paradigms that have influenced me- Adam Martin, Jiyoon Park, Gibran Hassan, Mateo Mijares, Lani Frazer
Speaks:
- Put me on to fire music. If it's good +1 speak, if it's bad -1, if I've heard it before 0
- I’m a big Man United fan. Diss man city or liverpool and I’ll prob up ur speaks
- Make me/ your opponents laugh
- Think on your feet, interact with the flow, and have fun!
email me if you have any concerns or questions I should address
✌️
Add me to the email chain: lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com AND ethanllee1247+debate@gmail.com
Please title the chains something along the lines of: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]
Junior from Lowell High School, I do lay debate and circuit debate as a 1A/2N. I am coached by Debnil Sur, so look to his paradigm for extra info. Prefer to not be called judge, "Ethan" is fine. I am likely not much older than you.
Tech over truth, but arguments need warrants.
Pls time your prep.
Don't be mean or do a bad -ism or -phobia.
For Lay: Only have a fast round if both teams agree to it. I will still evaluate these debates technically, but there should be more explanation of individual arguments.
Ethos matters - those who sound more persuasive will be more persuasive.
If there are any other questions, you can ask them before the round!
lowell 24’
tldr: i'm a vars debater and am comfortable with any speed. i don’t really care, do whatever you want. i would vote on anything if it’s debated well
novice:
advice i often find myself giving:
- time your own prep/speech/cx! i am not ur mother
- interact with your flow more - make sure to directly answer the opponents' arguments
- give ur speech in the order of ur opponents ! (case should always be in the order of the 1nc, everything else should be in order of 2ac)
general tech stuff:
- i default to sufficiency framing - huge risk of the da outweighs a low risk of the cp not being able to solve.
- i default judge kick, but you should tell me to just in case i forget.
- condo is cool! i have never judged a theory debate but i do find them hard to resolve in my own rounds sooo use lots of examples and you'll be more persuasive to me
- obv tech > truth, i'm very technical and am willing to vote on dropped things. make sure it has an impact and/or explain the implications of it in the context of the round
About Me
Varsity policy at Sonoma. 1A/2N (best position). Don't waste time trying to adapt to me as a judge, run whatever you do best.
Don't read args endorsing racism/sexism/promoting self harm. Death theory/pessimism/wipeout etc. is fine.
Put me on the chain - amossdebate@gmail.com
TKO
If you believe the other team made a mistake that makes winning impossible(dropping T or a solvent CP), you can end the round, explain to me why they lost, and if I agree you will auto win with 30s. If I think you were wrong, you lose with 27s
TLDR
Policy------------------X---------------------------K
Tech------X-----------------------------------------Truth
Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad
UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most
Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Sounding like a faucet
Good ev-------------x----------------------------More ev
AT: -X------------------------------------------------------ A2:
For good speaks :)
Aggressive cx is good as long as it isn't rude - fine line
Be kind and funny, debate is a game
Be organized
Rebuttals off the flow are good
Having a cool fit
Qls 26
add me to the email chain: norahparampath@gmail.com
For Policy:
Focus on depth in arguments (claim + warrent + impact) and clarity more than speed. This means that even with conceeded args you must do the comparative weighing for me. Don't just extend arguments—explain their importance and how it impacts the round. quality > quantity (this means for spreading too). if u steal prep i will be sad :(
also, plz say what word u r marking a card at
Have fun :)
I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and go only for policy args.
Put me on the email chain:
please name the chain something reasonable.
Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.
I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.
FW v K aff: Fairness is an impact but I usually prefer skills/clash. I do think that this activity has some effect on debaters and judges but to what extent is up to debate. I have a pretty good understanding of most critical theory but have gone for more security/cap rather than identity args in the past. I like to think I am 50-50 in these debates and can be convinced of almost anything pretty easily.
K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.
Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".
Random stuff:
- Won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round.
- I will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening.
- I only flow stuff that is said during the speech time and won't vote for arguments that literally break the format
- I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice
- I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.
- I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.
Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, T Weddington, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Cat Jacob
extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Head-Royce or Cal debaters
Hi! I'm Nishant (he/him). I'm a debater at College Prep, and if there's an email chain, add me at nrout@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org.
Please don't use speech drop >:( otherwise you might drop the ballot. I have years of experience, not judging (or debating) necessarily, but experience nonetheless.
The most important speeches for me are the ones that have the people asking the questions. I'll donate some speaking points if you're sassy. Ill take many copious notes while they're happening. Other speeches are also fairly relevant, though, so ensure that their content is okay.
You got this! Debate is an educational space so, and these aren't in order of importance:
- You can challenge pretty much anything, including why debate is an educational space. Be responsive!
- Don't be exclusionary or violent—physically of course but also in language. Otherwise you shall be reported to the tab.
- please read your evidence. I get it; you're a 1N and don't care what's going on, but please do.
- Read pretty much anything, but know that if you're unclear and aren't signposting it'll affect your speaks.
- framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.
- critiques - fine with K's and K affs, just don't expect me to be already-familiar with your theory of power. For K's, you need to be able to thoroughly explain what you're arguing.
- theory - I'm fine with theory debates, just make sure that you're debating cleanly at the impact level.
- rebuttals — Judge instruction is really important, here; tell me how I should evaluate the debate. Also, I like organized and responsive debates; rebuttals should have extensions that are actually warranted out and contextualized, not just "extend this card from the 1AC" without any explanation of what that would look like.
- please be honest about time and keep track of it yourself.
And have fun lolz. If you can read it and debate it well, I'm usually in. Be nice! :)
I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.
Hello, I am a parent judge, and this is my first-year judging.
-Please speak at a normal pace and eye contact would be nice.
-Make clear and understandable arguments.
-Provide justification for your arguments.
-Not familiar with topicality and kritiks, but if they are explained well, I can vote for them.
-Provide a road map of your speech and clearly articulate your talking points. Try not to jump around too much.
-Please be respectful and professional.
Don't forget to breathe and have fun!
DEBATE & GENERAL BACKGROUND:
4 years, high school (1987-1991, Congress, LD)
4 years, Boston College (1991 - 1995, NDT/Policy)
Moot court, Villanova Law School
Assistant Coach/Judge, Kings College (1996 - 1997)
Coaching/Judging: ~ 100+ rounds 1996 - present
Assistant Debate Coach, Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep (current)
Attorney (litigation): 25 years (my ‘day job’)
OVERVIEW
Please send all evidence to: cdsdebatejudge@gmail.com
Remember that at its core, debate is a communication activity and the debater’s job is to persuade. Well presented arguments, with strong links and internal links and supported by credible evidence with authoritative sources, are always the most persuasive. I appreciate clash — debaters should not sidestep their opponent’s arguments. Take them head on and address them.
My quirks, issues, and pet peeves:
- Organization and Roadmapping. I debated back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, man discovered fire, and debaters carried 150 pounds of evidence with them in tubs across college campuses. Affirmative cases lived in accordion folders. But back then, people were organized. Electronic debate appears to have warped everyone's ability to number or name their arguments, or even have a remotely organized speech. If you are debating in front of me, name your off case positions (e.g,, "Disadvantage - IRS" or even "Harold the Counterplan," but SOMETHING that distinguishes them) and organize them. "A. Link, B. Uniqueness, C. Internal Link, D. Impact, etc.), tell me where you are on case and number your arguments ("Now go to Contention III, Solvency, I have five arguments, 1. Aff can't solve because . . . ") Take a beat (or at least a breath) between positions so I know there is a transition. I will stop flowing if I am lost or can't follow you. If you choose not to number or organize your arguments, you do so at your peril.
- Speed is fine. Incoherent debate is not. I can generally follow you if you go quickly and enunciate and number your arguments. If you don't, I can't. It's as simple as that. I'm also not beholden to the blocks that go back and forth, even if you email them to me. The evidence has to be introduced orally. Sometimes debaters debate from the evidence that they exchange and not from the evidence that actually gets introduced in the round, Please remember this fact.
- Baseless evidentiary/ethical challenges. Never, ever, ever make these claims lightly. I have seen many debates where these claims have been thrown around haphazardly like it's just another argument in the line by line. But they're not. If you make a serious ethical challenge to evidence (fabricated source, miscited source, cards cut seriously out of context so as to completely change their meaning), I reserve my right to stop the debate and evaluate the challenge immediately. Teams making an ethical challenge must be able to prove it with an original copy of the source material that clearly shows the violation. Teams that allege an ethical violation that they cannot prove will lose the debate and get zero speaker points. On the other hand, teams proven to have committed an ethical violation will lose the debate and get zero speaker points.
SPECIFICS
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I’m a policymaker by default but can shift to other paradigms (stock issues, tabula rasa) if persuaded to do so. Regardless of whether I’m judging LD, PuFo, or Policy, I find good, sound policies persuasive.
ORGANIZATION: Organization is everything in policy. See above. This means not only giving an off-time roadmap but keeping yourself organized on the flow itself. If an argument gets dropped, you win it. But if you don't number/organize your arguments, and I can't find it on my flow, I can't extend it and you can't win it. When you move between positions during your speech (DA, case, CP, etc.), make sure you take a beat and TELL me where you are going. And remember to EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE, because if it's not extended, it effectively ceases to exist.
DECISION CALCULUS/WEIGHING: This is something that the best debaters do well. It's essential for the 2NR and 2AR to tell me what the issues are and why they win, and exactly how I should vote and why, but it's important to start developing these analyses starting from the very first speech. Also, analyze impacts. Why do your 5 nuclear wars outweigh your opponent's global extinction? But don't forget to weigh and impact arguments throughout the debate. If your opponent drops an argument, extend it and explain why that dropped argument wins the round.
On specific issues:
Topicality: It’s always a voting issue. Don’t drop it. But voting on T is disfavored. I need to have a really good reason to vote on T. If it’s a close call, I’ll default to the case being topical. Also, if you go for T in the 2NR, you should really go for it. Fair warning - I have not heard many good T arguments on this year’s topic at all.
Affirmative case. This is always the heart of the debate. While stock issues aren't really my paradigm, cases with little impact or poor solvency don’t persuade me and rarely outweigh the impact to a good DA. Make sure your case is logical and has the requisite internal links to get to your stated harms though. Really key to have strong solvency evidence supporting the affirmative plan.
Counterplans: I don't like topical counterplans, and I’m not a huge fan of introducing them in the 2N. Counterplans should be competitive and provide a clear net benefit that they can solve for. I hate conditionality - especially in cases like where the negative gets up and runs three inconsistent conditional counterplans - because I don't think it's fair to create a moving target that can be jettisoned after the negative block and am very open to “conditionality bad” theory arguments in such circumstances. That said, you need to be able to persuade me of some abuse. A single conditional or dispositional counterplan, by itself, is unlikely to push me to vote aff.
DAs: Links are key. Tenuous links to huge impacts far off in the future are far less persuasive than a compelling link to a moderate impact and a strong internal link. I find link turns to be very persuasive and will happily vote on turns. Not a fan of “nuke war good” arguments but, hey, it’s your debate, and if even silly arguments are not properly addressed they can become voting issues.
Kritiks: These were just coming into vogue when I was in college. I will evaluate and vote on them if they are well developed and coherent. However, I am VERY open to theory arguments on Kritiks, and my bias is that they don't belong in policy debate. This is distinct, of course, from a deontological "decision rule" or another impact analysis-type argument.
One last note on speed. Speed isn’t a problem for me, but speed for speed’s sake is unhelpful and if you're going to go fast, you'd better be organized. Speed is also not a substitute for good arguments.
Good luck!
For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.
For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.
I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.
---
2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).
It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.
I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.
After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.
Style/Big Picture:
-
I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
-
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
-
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
-
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
-
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
-
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
- Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
-
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
-
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
-
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.
Topicality:
-
I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
-
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
-
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.
Framework:
-
The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
-
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
-
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
-
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.
Case Debate
-
Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
-
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
-
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.
Disads
-
Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
-
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
-
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.
Counterplan Competition:
-
I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
-
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
-
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
-
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.
Critiques:
-
I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
-
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
-
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
-
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
-
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
-
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
-
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
-
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.
Performance (the other critique):
-
Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
-
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
-
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.
Email chain/contact: luca.tonda@sonomaacademy.org
About me -I am a Senior debating at Sonoma Academy
General -My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate.
Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.
Topicality -I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.
Theory -I have a decent threshold for theory debates and find them to be frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.
Framework - You should be engaging in what they do, and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.
The K -its great but Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.
Disadvantages- Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).
Counterplans-Creative CP's are great You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.
Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.
Lowell '22
Cal '26
Contact Info
Policy: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail [dot] com
LD: tsantaylor [at] gmail [dot] com
Policy
Lay Debate: I'll evaluate the debate as a slow round unless both teams agree to go fast. Adapt to the rest of the panel before me.
Topicality: It's the negative's burden to prove a violation. I think debate is both an educational space and a competitive game, so I will be more persuaded by the model that maximizes its benefits for debaters and creates the most level playing field for both sides.
Counterplans: Unlimited condo is good. Advantage CP planks should have rehighlightings or solvency advocates to be legitimate. Deficits should be clearly impacted out from the 2AC to the 2AR for me to vote on them.
Disads: Turns case arguments, aff-specific link explanations, and ev comparison matter most for me. Logical, smart analytics do just as much damage as ev.
Ks: Most familiar with cap/setcol/security/IR Ks. I evaluate framework first to frame the rest of my flow. Contextualization to the aff, turns case analysis, and pulling lines from the 1AC are really important for the link debate.
K-Affs/KvK: I have the least experience judging these debates. "As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote aff." - Debnil Sur
LD
I primarily judge LD now, but I've never competed in the activity so I'm not familiar with the specific theory/tricks. Explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way for me, especially in the final rebuttals.
Things that will lower your speaks: stopping prep time before you start creating your speech doc, egregiously asking your opponent what was marked/not read, going for an RVI.
Misc.
I won't read evidence at the end of the debate unless you explicitly tell me to and send a compiled card doc.
Read whatever you want - if an argument is truly so bad that it shouldn't be debated, you should be able to beat it with zero cards. With that said, there is a clear difference between going for certain args and being actively violent in round, and I have zero tolerance for the latter.
+0.1 speaks if you make fun of a current cal debater/anyone on the lowell team and i laugh
Be nice, don't cheat, and have fun!
Hi, I'm a senior
Please be nice to each other
jvuong2@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org
i'm fine with tag cx if everyone else is too (please ask other team before doing it)
Please recite the first 7 lines of the Aeneid, in Latin, in meter for +0.001 speaker points.
Tech > truth
clarity > speed
i love funditionality, i think its really fun
tech>truth
clarity>speed
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 (Studying Computer Science, not debating) || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers
Please add both kellyye16@gmail.com and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.
Background
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy >> K vs. K.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you.
General Things
I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.
Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.
I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis & contextualization - I think that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of resolution done by teams in a round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.
2023-2024 Round Stats If You Care:
Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds
Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds
K vs. Policy (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds
K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round
Sat once out of 12 elim rounds
Disads
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.
CPs
Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.
The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Ks
Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“
Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.
Planless Affs/Framework
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Stop with the question of "what does voting aff in round [x] of tournament [y] do for your movement", you're hardly ever going to get the gotcha moment you think you will. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.
Topicality / Theory
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.
Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.
Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.
Ethics Violations/Procedurals
I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.
Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.
Online Debate
Please don't start until you see my camera on!
If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.
I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.
Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.
Public Forum
I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.
I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.
If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.
I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.
If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.
Be nice & have fun.
she/her/hers
sonoma '25
caroline.young@sonomaacademy.org
1a/2n, debater at Sonoma! Currently under my queen Adam Martin and formerly under my god, my spirit animal, Lani Frazer, DoF, Rest in Peace.
TLDR:
Tech> truth in most cases. I don't care what you read, as long as you like it and you are having a fun time in the round. I have zero tolerance for any homophobic, sexist, racist, or other harmful argument. Running them will result in an L and 0 speaks. I love it when people are funny and make the round less tense! Debate is a game, don't take it too seriously. I will not adjudicate issues that happened outside of the round; anything that happened before the round is not my problem to adjudicate. Random but I love Georgia font. If you make you're whole doc in Georgia font I will love you.
I will always try and keep my RFDs as snappy as possible, but please ask me questions in round if you have them regarding how I made my decision (as long as you are nice about it!). You can also feel free to email me after the tournament!
For GGSA1: Have fun and learn as much as you can. This is the best place to learn and try new things, take some risks and see how it goes! Be nice to each other please, I really dislike people who are mean in round. I am fine with speed, but I would prefer you to be more clear than fast. Please label your arguments on the doc and signpost in your speeches! It makes flowing the round so much cleaner and is much appreciated.
If you need anything before the round (pronouns, accessibility, etc that I should be aware of) please please shoot me an email or find me on campus!
Long Version
Case:I think aff teams too often forget about the case debate and get too tripped up in whatever whack moves the neg is making. Remember that case is there for a reason and it probably outweighs any hack K or weird CP that the neg reads.
T:Violations are a reason to reject the arg, not the team, but they're can be exceptions. Generally won't reject the team unless it's thoroughly explained why I am rejecting the team. Affs on the topic should probably tax and transfer, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Framework is pretty straightforward. Standards are a classic, and often outweigh the aff framework. Don't let the K hacks push you over with their impact turn bs, because your standards are probably true and probably outwiegh. Tell me why thats true! Don't just tell me that the round was unfair because they read a K aff, tell me HOW that has implicated your ability to debate in this round. I think framework can be really strong if coupled with some nice case cards that respond to their K, and is an asset that can probably be won versus most K affs.
Ks: for you K slime like me!!! Now is your chance! Break free from the shackles of policy debate!!! I love K lit and only read K args, so I will probably be familiar with the lit that you read in round. That being said, I will do no work for you in terms of understanding exactly what you are critiquing. You need to actually explain to me what you are critiquing, what the link to the aff is (not just a link of omission) and tell me how that outweighs. I will vote on death being a jump between quantum timelines if you explain to me why its true. My limit is death good; I know this is becoming more popular, please don't run it in front of me :)
K Affs: Love them!!!! I enjoy a good song or poem in the 1AC, but I enjoy you explaining why they are aplicable to your critique even more :) I have a high threshold for 1AC CX, and you will get docked speaks for being vague just to be strategic. I can be convinced of anything if you actually explain why your claim is true. Debate could be bad, but I wont believe so if you dont tell me why.
DA/CP:I don't have overly strong opinions on disads or counterplans. I'm not the best judge for high level Da/CP debating, but I can get behind a good politics DA.
Other:
+.1 speak if you make a Justin Bieber reference in your speech.
Let me know if you have any questions about my OP paradigm. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc. have fun :)
QLS 24 | USC 28
Policy (3yrs) and PF (1 yr).
Email Address: zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org
I learned everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be.
Top Level:
- 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 and evidence for each speech.
- Don't steal prep and time your speech
- 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 most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."
- Won't judge kick unless getting instruction
- (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. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.
- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.
- Cool with Post-Round. I think it's pretty educational. However, the question should be a more technical base regarding the argument. Instead of "I said this in my speech. did you not flow it?" (Truth: I post-round when I am a debater. I think it's more a process of self-validation. The ballot won't change, but I would tell you I made a wrong judgement if I truly think I made a wrong decision. The chance would be pretty rare though.)
For policy specific:
Topicality
- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.
- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually
- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.
Theory
- I will vote on theory. However, 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 be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.
- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) 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.
- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.
Framework
- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran a policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)
- Winning a well-developed FW would determine how I eveluate every argument in the round
- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.
- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)
- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness can be an impact but less for me, especially when debate collapse on subjectivity change. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links 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)
Case
- 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.
DA
- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!
- 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.
CP
- My favorite off strat, go on competition
- 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 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)
Ks
- 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.
- Ethics violation: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, 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.
KAffs
- I 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. Statistically, 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 T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.
LD:
- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I may judge based on policy standards. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.
Be respectful
Have fun!
Elizabeth Zhuge
Add me to the email chain: ezhuge12@gmail.com
Pronouns: she/her
Experience: I debated one year of public forum in 8th grade, policy 9th-current. I go to Quarry Lane.
------
General
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.
------
Policy
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.
Ks: Fine.
CPs: Fine.
DAs: Fine.
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.
------
LD
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.
------
Public Forum
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.