Tabroom.com

GGSA Debate 1 LD PF Policy

2023 — Oakland, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Pranav Aiyer The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 1:38 PM PDT

Use aiyerpranav@gmail.com ,debate@student.quarrylane.org , and title the email chain adequately:
24-25---[Tournament Name]---[Team Code] [Aff] vs [Team Code] [Neg]

Case debate.

As much as it may be hard on this topic, I'd prefer it. Most affs don't have strong internal links.

Disad

Comparative work and impact calculus will win these debates.

CPs

Feel free to run Process CPs.

Against these the aff is best served with either competition or a solvency deficit plus net benefit defense. Hard sell for 'textual only'.

Conditionality is good, especially on this topic. It can get egregious but it's usually less about the number but about the practice + in-round analysis. Aff is better served with strategy skew or depth and Neg's should always go for Neg Flex. Nonetheless, teams may not be as good at defending it, so feel free to go for it. Hard sell for 'x-1' interps.

I'm good for an arbitrariness push against most theory arguments, i.e what classifies as a 'solvency advocate'. Nonetheless, if you think you're good at debating theory, and have done process-specific work towards a specific affirmative, then feel free to execute if you wish.

Topicality

Just like any other form of debate; offense/defense and weighing standards.

I can be persuaded by reasonability in certain instances.

Most affs will be well suited with Aff Ground or Precision as a 2AR. Plan text in a vacuum is likely a good standard for topicality, as a 2A.

Aff v K

If your K doesn't disprove the desirability of the plan text, you should obviously introduce a framework argument. Equally good for middle ground interpretations or excluding the K or the plan entirely.

In order, I'm probably best for excluding the case, a linear disad to the case + case debate, utopian alt + framework/link debate to justify no perms, an epistemology alternative with carded/well-warranted spillout, and then movements.

Probably good for some combination of fairness and clash constraining the debate to either one without the ability to develop offense on the other axis is dangerous.

Neg vs K

I'm starting to feel like fairness as a standalone impact is less persuasive, when combined with clash it starts to become a bit better. Otherwise, I'm weighing risk of ethically disassociating from a microaggression versus my commitment to fair adjudication. Alongside clash, a well-developed TVA, and impact calculus, it would seem to get my ballot easily outweighing a 'risk of a microagression', especially if you have won models.

For the aff, against framework, I would either go for an in-round K of the aff's performance, a counterinterp with a big disad to framework that outweighs whatever external clash impact they had + win models, or a counterinterp with a lot of defense to predictability, switch side, TVA, etc. and a defense of why aff education is key to good policymaking.

And, against these you shouldn't go for the K in the 2NR, or I would at least be categorically worse at adjudicating the debate. Really unfamiliar with a lot of lit bases.

Speaker Points

Are usually a reflection of my mood and thoughts on the quality of the debate.

These are usually a reflection of how (perceptually) knowledgeable you are, technical execution/sticking to the line by line and simplifying big picture decisions to make my job easier, and sounding good.

Novices.

Do line by line. Try to answer your opponents' arguments in the order they made them. Understand your arguments. Do impact calculus. Meet these criteria, and I'm looking forward to judging!

Arjun Amin College Prep

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 7:10 AM PDT

Add aamin[at]thecollegepreparatoryschool[dot]org to the chain.

In general, Tech > truth.

Alas, I will intervene in the decision, thus the following are exceptions to tech > truth:

K affs

T-USFG is a relatively underutilized strategy. It's especially impactful going for procedural fairness with a reasonability internal link. Skills is a non-starter, nobody is gaining anything from your model of debate. Precision on your definition of "USFG" should take up 3 minutes of your 2NR *minimum*.

Affs should go for the “we meet” through redefining the function of the USFG as “we some people” (see: performative revolutionary fiat).
The 2AC is best served by reading at least six (preferably more) counterinterpretations. The most strategic ones involve a neg-neg model of debate. Aside from the C/I, author indicts are a good primary 2AR strat. I will not evaluate the impact turn.

Presumption/ballot not key arguments can easily be answered with Winners Win.

K v. K debates — The capitalism critique is best executed as “rev coming now, plan stops rev, state engagement good”. Most planless affs already assume the thesis of most critiques so little ink in the 2AC is needed.

Critiques (on the negative)

I view the critique as a non unique disad with a uniqueness cp that resolves the impact. Links should be either to the plan or function of the 1AC— not both. I’m more familiar with standard topic lit bases like Buddhism, the Dalit critique, and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Third-worldist interpretations of fiat.
2NCs should contextualize the permutation as the impact to framework— both are tests of competition contingent on each other.
2ACs should pre-empt framework arguments with plan text in a vacuum. 1ARs should kick case and go for cap good.

Counter-plans

Counterplans need compete off of textual competition only— anything else is arbitrary and infinitely regressive.

Counter-permutations are a legitimate argument.

I enjoy a good process CP debate, especially the Filibuster CP which consecutively fiats the House of Representatives, the 48 (+3) Democrat-aligned Senators, "President" Joe Biden and "VP" Kamala Harris, the 49-member Senate Republic Caucus, and the 9 Justices of the United States Supreme Court— it empirically solves the case.

I default to interpreting "1 condo" as 1 conditional counterplan, 1 unconditional counterplan with conditional planks, 1 criticism with a conditional alternative, and 1 disadvantage with a conditional internal link.

Disadvantages

The elections disad is an incredibly strategic argument on this topic. Auto L + lowest speaks if either team refers to joseph biden as the current “president”.
I will not accept evidence citing “Times/Siena Polls” or any analysis from The New York Times, the centerpiece of the crypto-fascist news media trying to re-orient the Democrat party through regularly fabricating information and polls.

Topicality

High bar for these debates. Generally think most neg standards can be easily beaten with reasonability. I default to plan text out of a vaccuum—T operates off of function of the 1AC *only*.

Hiding ASPEC in topicality shells is cowardice. Hiding ASPEC in 1AC cross-examination yields a 30.

I will evaluate RVIs, RRVIs, and RRRVIs.

Theory

Conditionality is reciprocal— there's nothing stopping the affirmative from reading multiple conditional plan texts in the 1AC.

Theoretical issues to reject the team on a particular flow must be delivered consecutively as fast as possible or they will not be evaluated.

Misc.

+0.5 speaks if you were there on January 6th.

+0.2 speaks if your flows taste good.

Prep time ends when your speech begins.

Excel Ang James Logan High School

Sanjana Bajaj The Quarry Lane School

Tristan Bato College Prep

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 2:03 AM PDT

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 second 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.

2024-2025 Update

I do not have much topic knowledge going into the season so please be sure to explain IP specific legal mechanisms, acronyms, or statutes explicitly since I want to have a good grasp on what you are talking about.

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.

Michael Brand Lowell High School

Last changed on Sun October 6, 2024 at 2:16 PM PDT

Lowell 23' Berkeley 27'

Email:

michaelistrueblue [at] gmail.com for email chains and tournaments.

PF stuff at the bottom.

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 carried me as my 2N/1A partner, with both of us under the watchful eye of the Mr. Debnil Sur.

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: No familiarity with the IP topic --- err on the side of over explanation. 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 / make smart turns case arguments. 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: More likely to be convinced by smart analytics and evidence rehighlightings than 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 4-off debate than a 11-off 1NC where the 2AC gets like 4 arguments on every flow at best.

+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).

Policy (Lay / GGSA):

Circuit's fine ifboth 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

I've never debated in PF and have limited experience judging this event! Explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way for me, especially in the final rebuttals.

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

Amlis CHAN James Logan High School

Athena Chan The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 3:12 AM PDT

quarry lane '26

any pronouns

athenasiyang@gmail.com

qlspolicy@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

novices

have fun and be nice :) debate is a chill activity so don't take it too seriously.

name the email chain something like -- GGSA 24 R1 - Quarry Lane AC [Aff] vs Lowell CL [Neg]

don't clip -- read the tag, author, date, and highlighted portions of the card. if you want to move on from a chonky card, end the card by saying "mark the card at [insert last word you read]."

time your speeches, cx, and prep (you can also time the other team if you want).

don't steal prep -- you should not be typing or writing things during downtime (ie. anytime there isn't a speech, cx, or prep happening).

tech > truth. that means if an argument is dropped, i won't evaluate new responses. similarly, i won't allow brand new arguments in the rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar) unless justified. however, if the other team drops an arg, you need to coherently extend it and tell me why it matters.

please read and extend complete arguments -- that means claim + warrant + impact -- or else i really can't evaluate it. that also means you need full da shells (uq, link, il, impact), k shells (link, impact, alt), etc in both the 1nc and extended into the 2nr if you choose to go for it.

PLEASE collapse on the neg. that means go for 1 piece of offense in the 2nr. going for multiple becomes shallow and hard to evaluate, which makes the debate really messy (usually not in your favor).

do impact calc! why should i prefer your impact over the other? causation/turns case args are very helpful.

don't just spam cards and read pre-written blocks -- try to engage with the other side through line-by-line and explain why their arguments are flawed. explanation is far more important, and you should effectively use evidence you've already read. that means you should flow! (ie. write your opponents arguments down by ear, not just by reading off the doc.)

clarity > speed, especially as a novice. signpost -- ie. let me know when you're moving on to another argument.

ignore everything below this section <3

top level

tech > truth; i will judge off the flow and intervene as little as possible. 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. please try to minimize inserting ev.

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.

comparative impact calculus and internal link analysis is really important for me. i need to you explain why your interp solves your offense and why that outweighs or turns theirs. topic-specific analysis is pretty helpful as well.

efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely. i'll assume dispo means perms or theory unless you define it otherwise.

don't read hidden aspec/theory.

i default to competing interpretations. 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. do ev comparison.

haven't dug very deep into k literature. i'm better for more common k's (cap, security, setcol, identity stuff), 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 so much. root cause explanation also helps a ton.

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.

impact calc is great. turns case analysis is super important, but don't overdo it because it becomes irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.

it pains me when teams clearly don't understand the ptx da bill they're reading.

k affs

t-usfg, cap k, and piks make the most sense to me.

i'm fine for either fairness or 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 thiele or yao yao for more details.

Merry Chan College Prep None

Kaelie Chang Head-Royce High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:54 AM PDT

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.

Yihong Chen James Logan High School None

Wendy Dhillon College Prep

Kyle Du The Quarry Lane School

Aria Gerking College Prep None

Johny Hong Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 3:46 AM PDT

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.

-If you want to know my position on specific issues go look at Debnil Sur’s paradigm. I mostly agree with everything there.

Sophia Jackson College Prep

Swasti Johri Branson School

Siddharth Kohli Sonoma Academy

Ethan Lee Lowell High School

Jenny Liu Lowell High School

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 9:25 AM PDT

lowell 24’ cal 28'

put lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain and title it: "Tournament - Round # - Aff School Team Code v Neg School Team Code"

tldr: first year out and very flexible, comfortable with ks, theory, policy, whatever you want

my only accomplishment is breaking at the toc as an at-large team ^^

***edit for long beach: i’m too lazy to finish my paradigm cuz i gotta lock in for midterms just look at debnil’s paradigm or smt im pretty reasonable and plz dont post round me im too stressed out rn to engage❤️ also i have literally ZERO topic knowledge i have never judged a single debate in this topic so if u dont explain ur plan im gonna be mad at u and lower ur speaks

my biggest inspiration is debnil sur

i probably think of arguments similarly to him, since he's coached me for all of my debate career

general background: im currently an undeclared liberal arts major at uc berkeley and hoping to go into law. in high school, i debated with many many many partners (basically the whole team) and that taught me the art of adaptation- i ended up debating with dora, where i got most of my legitimate varsity experience... i read both impact filled policy affs and an asian women k aff which i LOVED reading. on the neg i have gone for the classic states cp ptx, econ adv cp, as well as race ir, psychoanalysis, and a silly nommo cp. as u can tell, i have experience debating a variety of arguments and will prob be comfortable with essentially anything.

topic background: zero. sorry :*( i am very interested in ip rights and will def learn more about it thru out the topic.. pls explain things clearly bc i do not get things sometimes. if i don't understand ur aff by the end of the round, ur much more likely to lose... and that's a u problem, not mine!

flowing/evidence:i will definitely NOT going to read u into a decision (unless i have zero clue what is happening) i will take your word for whats in your evidence and the warrants UNLESS the opposing team points it out. which means... if the other side is completely lying abt the evidence and ur not pointing it out, u will probably lose bc what are u doing. with that being said if u lie abt ur evidence i will lower ur speaks if i find out!

k affs and framework: i have debated on both sides of this debate, and i feel comfortable voting for either side. i went for a k aff with an impact turn style on framework and that worked out... okay? i understand how these debates turn out and it's often just reading blocks without much impact comparison. please explain things clearly instead of just dropping jargon, i'll still get it, but its just a lot more persuasive if there's an explanation. refer to debnils paradigm for detailed thoughts.

k v k: idk if u can trust me in this kind of debate... i will probably be aff leaning if i do not understand what the k is. i have gone for cap k and this baudrillard k against k affs but its like not really complicated. if u are confident that u can write me an rfd at the top of ur 2nr that makes sense, then yes, go for it! but i am not deep into k literature so u cannot rely on me to do the background information for u. i think k debaters win too much by relying on k hacks that just do the thinking for them. pls learn how to think!

policy v ks: i have a lot of experience debating ks with a policy aff as well as the neg so i understand the usual framework tricks etc etc. similar to what i said above, i think k debaters often turn off their brain and read blocks and rely too much on k hack judges. if u are going to spread thru blocks, at least slow down occasionally so u can explain to me what exactly ur win condition is and ur main pieces of offense. yes, the world is racist, but why does the aff make it worse? u cannot be upset at me if i vote aff if u just spent the whole debate spreading thru analytics with big words with zero specific analysis abt the aff. for me its better when ks are dumbed down, like yes the opponents won't understand it, but what makes u think the judge does too? u don't need to use big boy words u found from searching up "ways to describe racism"

topicality: i think these debates are interesting if debated well. it's not just comparing which author is more qualified, but more abt the model of debate that your definition justifies. give examples, point out in round abuses that would make you much more persuasive. i am not very familiar with the topic still and would appreciate if examples are explained and contextualized.

theory: im okay for this.. condo is good ! stupid theory arguments are stupid. i will still vote on it if horribly mishandled. but it must obviously have a warranted debates with less comparison are hard to resolve for me and more analysis and explainations will only help you.

counterplans:i default to judge kick. i don't think i have judged a counterplan competition round yet but i think im ok for it? just dont spread thru analytics plz

disads: please over explain and slow down disad stories! this topic is really confusing for me and im probably exhausted so i need you to slow down and explain to me. i dont think ive ever judged a round where impact calc was properly done? (i havent judged a disad debate yet on this topic) but compare them, tell me how to evaluate them, contextualize them! good impact calculus usually wins you this debate. however even if i dont completely understand your disad but if i have a vague picture and you're winning impact calc then i'll probably vote for you. love aff straight turns btw, so strategic.

misc:

i am very expressive so do ur best to guess what im thinking

unless i am visibly in distress or deep in thought, im probably not taking a long time to decide, im just writing down comments

Atticus Moss Sonoma Academy

Last changed on Sun September 1, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT

About Me

Varsity policy at Sonoma. 2A/1N (best position). Don't waste time trying to adapt to me as a judge, run whatever you do best.

Put me on the chain - amossdebate@gmail.com

TKO - Stolen From Debnil

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

Detailed Stuff

T/L

Judges should be just that - they should have zero predisposition, which could have any possibility of changing a ballot based on whether they like an arg - I do my best to abide my this - Go for anything you want - Wipeout, Ligotti, afropess, world peace cp's - It's all fine in my book - One consideration is that bad args are in fact bad - If you for some reason feel the need to impact turn racism, go ahead, but you'll almost certainly lose as long as the other team answers it

Big Stick Affs

They're great. Extinction is probably bad, and doing stuff is probably good to solve it. Affs should be well constructed, and I enjoy when there are interesting impacts/internal links. ALSO - diversionary war theory is definitely true, go for it.

Soft Left Affs

Never been a huge fan, but I think when well debated they can be super strategic. If you actually do warrant debating on the framing page, and explaining how certain lines from your "suffering first" cards implicate their generic util offense, you're setting yourself up to win. I think when debated perfectly, soft left affs should always lose to inflation DA + any counterplan

K Affs

Love them, go for them regularly. I believe k debating results in very volatile speaks. If you don't understand your aff, it's poorly constructed, or you just debate it poorly, your speaks will tank. If you know your aff, have read the lit, and know how to apply cards from the 1ac to beat neg offense, your speaks will be very high. I think at their best, K affs are able to make a round as organized as possible, more than any policy round, isolating neg offense, and explaining why the aff beats it. All this being said, even though I love these affs, I won't hesitate to vote neg if you debate it poorly.

T vs. Policy

When debated well, I really enjoy topicality debates. A good T debate involves things like evidence comparison, in depth explanation of standards, etc. Ways to improve your chances of winning would be things like caselists under your interp or explaining why certain args implicate others ie. what their model justifies and why it's bad. Limits and ground are probably the only real standards on T. PTIV is probably an uphill battle, but I'll be willing to vote on it. KEY THING, the only time my personal preferences effect a T debate, is when the aff is so blatantly complicated that it directly effects the quality and organization of the debating during that round. That will probably annoy me

I think framework is likely a true argument, but I also really like k affs, when both debated perfectly, I probably lean aff slightly. Fairness is probably true, but I'm one of a select few who really enjoy skills/clash as an impact. Thats basically my only thoughts. If the aff isn't T, go for T.

They're good. Do impact calc and explain turns case. Really big fan of well constructed politics DA's.

Good counterplans are good, bad ones are bad. Do whatever you want as long as you do it well. Counterplans I enjoy include well constructed adv cp's, mechanism pics, certainty competitive cp's like sunsets. CP's I don't enjoy as much are states when it clearly doesn't solve, poorly constructed adv cp's, or convoluted process counterplans that you can't explain. Probably lean neg on most theory questions, with the exceptions of QPQ and Consult counterplans. LAST NOTE - Counterplans which are not functionally competitive justify limited intrinsicness on aff perms.

Yes? No? Maybe? - If you go for some backfile K you don't understand, and can't debate properly, I will be very irritated. If you understand your lit and debate it technically well I'll be happy. Assume that I know what your k is, but not that I understand all it's functions ie. Don't waste time explaining what psychoanalysis means, but you should explain why the death drive is true and turns case. I'm not a fan of K debates that sound like a 3 minute overview, no line by line, and decade old framework backfiles.Debating the K should be very technical, regardless of whether it's the fiat k, or some post fiat/turns case arg. You should explain why your framework is best, why that beats perms and gives you links to the aff, and why links are DA's to the perms. I usually just kick the alt and go for the fiat K, but have nothing against you going for a good ol fiated alt.

K v K

These debates are almost always messy, do your best to keep them organized. No predispositions on whether the aff gets perms in a method debate. Blank slate for these debates

Theory

Will vote on any complete argument which is a claim+warrant+impact. There are two tiers of theory. Real args ie. condo, Aspec(yes really), whatever spec theory has actual topical relevance. Then there are less real args, PIKS/PICS bad, agent cp's bad, etc. These probably have to go dropped to be voters.

Steven Pait The Quarry Lane School

Norah Parampath The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Sun October 6, 2024 at 1:26 PM EDT

Qls 26

add all these emails to the email chain: psdropscondo@gmail.com qlspolicy@gmail.com debate@student.quarrylane.org

experince - 3rd yr varsity policy debator (2a/1n)

For novice policy:

tldr - 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 arent clear i wont flow). i am prolly worst at evaluating heavy k framework debates. feel free to post round me. if u steal prep i will be sad :(

also, plz say what word u r marking a card at

For pf:

my debate partner, Maanyata Srikantam has some inspirational words to say abt this

tech > truth.i will judge off the flow. if u dont have good evidence ethics ur speaks wont be good. debate the way you want, but keep in mind that i am coming from policy and you should treat me like a tech judge.tell me what arguments matter more and why. be comparative. i will be okay to judge a theory/k debate as long as it's no more than a JV-policy level debate. i err disclosure good and paraphrasing bad, though you are welcome to try and change my mind. send speech docs with cut cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech.i don't really have a tolerance for bad evidence ethics, so send those docs and don't misrepresent your cards.frontline in the second rebuttal.if you go for an argument without frontlining defense, and then your opponents extend that defense, i will evaluate it as conceded defense.any argument that isn't responded to in the next speech, besides 1st constructive, i will consider dropped.offensive args in final focus must be in summary. any argument you want in the ballot must be extended in summary AND final focus, including dropped defense. take advantage of dropped offense + collapse! both are strategic decisions and i will reward them if they call for it.

Have fun :)

Riley Reichel Lowell High School

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 5:15 AM PDT

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 only go for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

for online debates, please try to have your camera on. speaking into the void feels weird

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: These used to be my favorite type of debates but are quickly becoming unfun to watch and judge. I usually find them hard to resolve because neither side does nearly enough impact calculus. 2NCs fail to grapple with specific offense and read generic blocks that the 1AR responds to with generic blocks. Read their evidence, answer specific offense, and weigh impacts.

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 so that you can't get mad at me when this happens:

won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round

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 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, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan. Their paradigms are better than mine (except Emilio) and they taught me everything I know.

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Cal debaters

Nishant Omkar Rout College Prep

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM PDT

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 (though I have debated policy for 3 years).

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! :)

Taniyia Smith Branson School None

TaNiyia Smith Branson School

Caroline Song James Logan High School

Christopher Strunk Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 12:01 PM PDT

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.

I’m a lawyer, and this is a legal topic, but don’t assume that means I can decipher every esoteric argument. And it is up to YOU, the debaters, to make the arguments. I will not bring my background (e.g., deciding that a legal argument you make is wrong) into a round at your expense when your opponents do not make that argument.

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 - Court Clog" 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,” framework, r 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!

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round 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). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Luca Tonda Sonoma Academy

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 8:09 AM PDT

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.

Taylor Tsan Lowell High School

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM PDT

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

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!

Jalen Vuong College Prep

Janet Walker College Prep None

Julie Wayne Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep

Kelly Ye College Prep

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org 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.

Note for Long Beach:This is my first tournament of the season & I did minimalsummer research on this topic. Please over-explain legal terms and topic specific acronyms!

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.

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.

Caroline Young Sonoma Academy

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 9:14 AM PDT

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 :)

Iris Zhang The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 4:14 PM PDT

QLS 24 (Flex)

USC 28 (2A|1N)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):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.

24-25 Updates: I have no idea what this year's high school topic looks like - treat me like a novice who never went to camp plz : )

Top Level (TLDR):

- 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.) 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."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- (MS/Novice rounds)

1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.

2. 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.

- 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.

- 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)

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat than only fw

- 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.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand the your K trick

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 The Quarry Lane School

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 2:34 AM PDT

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.

------

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.

Login to Tabroom

GGSA Debate 1 LD PF Policy

2023 — Oakland, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges