Emails to put on the chain:

aiyerpranav@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

Please title the email chain adequately: '24-25---[Tournament Name]---[Team Code] [Aff] vs [Team Code] [Neg]" should serve as a general template.

I strive to evaluate debates as technically proficient as possible. I can't guarantee that I'll make a perfect decision, but if you disagree with the way I have evaluated the debate, I will have a far lower threshold for postrounding; I understand the time and effort that goes into preparing for this activity.

I will not look at the speech doc when judging. If I'm suspicious about clipping, I'll check myself. The only time when I will call for a speech doc is if the debate is otherwise irresolvable or the evidence itself is being debated and is necessary for me to render a decision.

In order to minimize intervention, doing the following will help in front of me:

1. Judge instruction. Accurately assessing the progression of a debate as it relates to the core set of arguments increases the likelihood that you will win; this is always better suited at the top of your rebuttals.

2. Resolving arguments. Rebuttals should include 'even-if' statements. Staking out the extreme position of "an unmitigated [x] outweighs a low risk of a [y]" is unpersuasive: take the middle ground.

3. Engage. Look and sound like you are addressing arguments. Adhere to a technical line-by-line format. Deliver cross-examinations that get to the heart of flaws in your opponent's argument. Enunciate every word, including those within your evidence/cards, and emphasize what you think I should consider more. Slow down and number to ensure that I am structurally less likely to miss an argument. My facial expressions should generally be a giveaway.

Miscellaneous

Minimize downtime: please time your speeches, cross-examinations, and prep time, get the 1AC sent as early as possible, try not to use the restroom for extended periods in the middle of a round, etc.

Novice or JV / Westerns Update

While I do strive to be as fair as possible, I feel the need to draw the line at a certain point: at this stage, I will entirely disregard theory arguments like new affs bad, hidden aspec, etc. Where the precise line drawn is up to me. These will likely reduce your speaker points for their introduction; this year is a time to be improving at the fundamentals.

quarry lane '26

any pronouns

athenasiyang@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

novices

have fun and be nice :) debate is a game 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 long card, say "mark the card at [last word you read]."

time your speeches, cx, and prep.

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

tech > truth. if an arg is dropped, i won't evaluate new responses. similarly, i won't allow unjustified new args in the rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar). however, if an arg is dropped, you still need to fully extend and implicate it.

please read and extend complete arguments -- that means claim + warrant + impact. 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 messy (usually not in your favor).

do impact calc! causation/turns case is helpful.

please line-by-line. explanation is far more important than spamming ev. that means you should flow!

clarity > speed. signpost -- let me know when you're moving on to another argument.

ignore everything below this section <3

top level

tech > truth. no exceptions.

explanation is more important than ev, and i will only go back to read ev if necessary.

i love good cx moments.

be respectful and have fun :)

theory

comparative impact and internal link analysis is really important. why is your offense intrinsic to your interp? topic-specific analysis is very helpful.

efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely. dispo means perms or theory unless defined otherwise.

i will begrudgingly vote on hidden theory but nuke your speaks.

t

caselists are great. do ev comparison.

reasonability makes very little sense to me.

k

better for k teams that do proper lbl and don't just have massive overviews and infinite c/apps.

i will not insert middle ground fw interps.

alt explanation is crucial -- what does it actually do? alt solves the case and root cause explanation is great. for the aff, cx NEEDS to pinpoint what the alt does -- teams have lost far too often on shifty alts that are epistemic rejections in one speech and world peace cps in the next.

in an ideal world, the link debate should be super important and specific to the aff. link turns case is a nice trick.

cp

case-specific and adv cps are my favorites.

i'm ok for process competition but err towards cleaner explanation.

i default to no judge kick. sufficiency framing means basically nothing.

presumption flips aff if you go for a world.

da

turns case is super important, but it becomes irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.

please learn the ptx da bill you're reading.

k affs

t-usfg makes the most sense, but i'm fine for kvk or piks.

i think fairness is the best external impact, and clash most effectively accesses turns case.

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.

QLS '25

Tech > Truth

Please name the email chain as follows: [Tournament name] [Round #] - [AFF team code] vs. [NEG team code].

For novice:

Please do line-by-line, be respectful to each other, and have fun.

Topicality:

Offense/defense. Impacting your standard is very important. Choose the standard you are winning and weigh it against the ones you are losing.

Card quality matters the most. Ideally, they should be in the context of the resolution or at least close to it.

Counterplan:

Substance > competition > theory.

I will vote on intrinsic or severance perms, but there will be a higher threshold requiring you to win theory (either justifying the perm through an illegitimate CP or claiming you are not intrinsic or severance).

Condo good/bad is up for debate. If it has to be the 2AR, feel free to go for it.

Theories other than condo (and maybe disclosure, perf con) are usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I usually lean neg a bit on them.

My default is no judge kick, but I can be persuaded otherwise. It must be clearly stated in both the 2NC and 2NR, and AFF can contest this.

Disad:

The turns case argument is very important.

A story/spin is usually more strategic than a dozen cards that say the same thing.

Kritik:

AFF needs to utilize the case; NEG needs to apply the links to the AFF. The one who talks more about the case usually wins the debate.

Not great for framework, better for substance. You probably need an alt.

I will not find a middle ground in framework for you, but feel free to advocate for one.

I went almost exclusively for Ks in my second year, so I'm cool with them. But do not assume I know your literature. Explain it as if I've never heard of it.

K tricks are cool (e.g., floating piks, root cause, etc.).

T-USFG:

If both sides debate equally, I lean neg. It would be sad if you decide to spread your block without doing a specific line-by-line.

Fairness is both a terminal impact and an internal link.

AFF should go for an impact turn if you clearly don't meet.

I don't think you necessarily have to answer the case in the 2NR to win. T is procedural, so it comes before the case. However, sometimes winning case defense can resolve AFF's offense on T.

K-Affs:

I read a K-Aff in my junior year, so I have some familiarity with it.

I will prefer those that critique the resolution or have some relationship with the rez.

If you are simply taking your K and retagging it to make it a K-Aff, it is very annoying.

I will vote on presumption. It is underutilized.

Misc.:

Generic arguments (process CP, ptx DA, reused Ks) are fine. How generic an argument is doesn't indicate how well it rejoins the 1AC.

English is my second language. That doesn't mean you can't spread (<350 APM is fine), but you need to be clearer.

I'm not a firm advocate of Longtermism.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as they are in their cards. If it is before/after where their cards start/end, you have to read it.

CX is binding, but I don't flow it. If your opponent concedes something, say that in the next speech.

No overview or short overview is preferable. In the 2NR/2AR, just spend 10 seconds at the top to write my ballot.

Quarry Lane 2026

Please add me to the email chain:

debatesteven@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

PF:
Have fun and do whatever you want, I don't normally judge PF.

I do like if you do a rundown of what the pro actually does and what it results in and why that's good/bad

For novice PF i notice a lot of times that teams will think too small. Rather than trying to deal with every piece of offense or every piece of defense you need to extend, figure out what is going to win you the round and really explain it. (Ex: do you really need to go for a card that says nuclear power plants are dangerous to wildlife when your opponent says they will prevent extinction, or should you go for the fact that nuclear power plants could cause escalation via cyberattacks and metldowns?)

SVUDL March: Ignore all below this is for policy

novices:

Have fun, we're all learning here.

It's your responsibility to time your prep/speech time

Extend all arguments you go for please. (this means if you want to reference something from a previous speech, you need to say the claim + warrant + impact of the evidence)

Line by line(answering each argument individually/grouping similar arguments)

Dropped arguments don't get new responses unless justified, tech > truth.But you still have to explain why a dropped arg matters and do proper warranting.

Impact Calculus isvery important. Tell me why your impact is more important than your opponents' impact.

Speed should not be top priority, arguments communicated is more valuable than arguments said(basically clarity + warranting > speed)

Judge Instruction is important, especially for technical/complicated arguments

personal preferences:

I prefer reasoning/explanation over cards/evidence

Mentioning what argument you are responding/referencing to(Number/Claim/Author) helps a lot. if you just say responses, I might have some trouble figuring out what you're responding to.

Qls 26

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

email subjects shud be like: X Tournament---[AFF] Team vs [NEG] Team

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

For novice policy:

Focus on depth in arguments (claim + warrent + impact) and clarity more than speed. This means that even with conceeded args you must do the comparative weighing for me. Don't just extend arguments—explain their importance and how it impacts the round. quality > quantity (this means for spreading too if u arent clear i wont flow). i am worst at evaluating heavy k framework debates. feel free to post round me. i am only familiar with toc national circuit style debate. if u steal prep i will be sad :(

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

i think i am worst at evaluating process cps and fmk heavy ks

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 :)

add me to the email chain (both please):
psdropscondo@gmail.com

qlspolicy@gmail.com

background: currently a 3rd year varsity policy debater for quarry lane (2N/1A) and student coach for novice policy at quarry lane, but briefly did PF and extensively did most speech events + congress for all 3 years of middle school

not novice/tldr: im pretty involved with debate and can probably meet you where you are, so debate how you want---as long as you debate well (judge instruction, clash, weighing) you'll have a fair shot at winning your argument. i defer judge kick unless debated otherwise. i mostly work with novices so that's what the rest of this paradigm is geared towards, so if you don't think that describes you/its 5 minutes before the round, feel free to skip the rest. good luck!

For Novice Policy (10/20/23):my most important things/some reminders are:

1. i am tech > truth --- this essentially means that if an argument is dropped (not answered) by the other team, i wont let them make new responses and will take your argument as the "truth" in the round, giving you the full weight of it. however, you must point out the argument is dropped, explain the argument itself, and tell me why them dropping it is important. just extending it really isn't enough---and this goes for arguments that aren't dropped too. the flip side of this is to make sure that if you think an argument is winning, extend it in the 2nc/1nr for neg or 1ar for aff so that you can have it in the 2nr/2ar---i wont let you make arguments that weren't in previous speeches UNLESS it's a response to a new argument your opponents make.
2. do weighing and respond to your opponents arguments --- debate is about interacting with your opponents, not having a one-sided monologue. if you aren't comparing your arguments to your opponents (telling me why your evidence is better and their evidence is worse, explaining why your argument matters more than theirs, telling me why the reasoning behind their arguments is stupid, etc), it will be very hard for me to decide the debate. i will reward you making + explaining smart arguments and interacting with your opponent's arguments with high speaks.
3. extend your arguments fully --- for a DA, that means explaining your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact—for a counterplan, that means solvency (how does your counterplan solve all of the affs plan) and net-benefit—for a K, that's your link, impact, alternative, and if you need it, framework—and for topicality, that's your interp, violation, standards, and voter (more on this at the bottom***)—again, if you don't do this, it makes it hard to decide the debate because then i have to intervene and decide whether or not i will give you whatever part of your argument you didn't extend (which means you could lose a round you deserve to win). and again remember, extending an argument isn't just saying the words "link: the plans progressive taxes hurt the IRS" and moving on, but explaining HOW progressive taxes hurt the irs (all your warrants and arguments should come from the card you read before)
4. collapsing on neg --- i know it's tempting to go for everything in the 2NR, but you need to make a choice and go for one winning argument. that can be a counterplan + DA, just a DA, just the K, just T, or maybe even really explaining a turn or 2 turns you have on case. of course, make sure your arguments are offensive (reasons why the aff is actually bad and i should vote negative) and not just defensive (arguments that minimize how good the aff is/their impacts). if you are going for a DA, it is good to have case for weighing (your impact outweighs or maybe even turns theirs), and for the K or CP, it is good to have case against any solvency deficits (reasons your cp/alt don't solve all the of affs plan). if you're going for t however, you don't need to go for case or anything else at all because t is a procedural argument and is what i will evaluate first.
5. sending evidence/general in-round logistics --- make sure to adhere to your prep time and time your own prep + speeches---i will also be timing you, but it's a good practice to have. while i won't vote against you for minor and clearly accident clipping (not reading all of the highlighted words in your cards), if you are being really abusive then it's kind of forcing my hand. please just say "mark the card at (the last words you said)" if you want to start reading another card---i really don't want to vote on clipping. send speech docs on the email chain with all cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech (please include analytics for the 1nc/2ac---be kind to your opponents). and lastly, this goes without saying, but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped.
6. flow!!!!! --- it's super important to make sure to respond to your opponents arguments and realize that they dropped some of your arguments. i'm gonna decide the round off my flow, so you should plan how to win the round off yours.

NOTE TO NOVICE DEBATORS: having done novice policy extensively myself and currently coaching my own novices, i have a lot of sympathy for novice policy debaters. i know this type of debate is hard to grasp and i want to do my best to help you understand it, so that you can enjoy policy and stay in the event if it's for you. please feel free to ask me questions post round, whether or not its about the debate that just occurred or my decision---ill be happy to answer any policy-related questions you may have :) as we can see from my paradigm, i'll definitely have a lot to say. best of luck in all your rounds!

***note for topicality, conditionality, and theory, if you're kind of lost: yes, if topicality is dropped by the aff or condo is dropped by the neg, i will automatically vote for the neg (for topicality) and aff (for condo) as long as you extend everything you need for it. i'll explain that below, but my recommendation for novice is that you just read your entire block from the 1nc/2ac to make sure you got everything (minus the cards on t---dont reread them, just read the tags of the cards). anyways, if you want a more thorough explanation: extend your interp (for topicality, this is usually a definition that is the first card you read in the 1NC [ex: job guarantee does not include job training], and for condo, it's the top or bottom line [condo ex: unconditionality/dispo/1 or 2 worlds solves]), explain why the other team doesn't meet your interp, also known as the violation (for t, this will be like "the aff violates---they include job training" or for condo "they are conditional and read 3 counterplans", your standards (which are probably prewritten and something like limits/ground for topicality, or depth/time skew for condo---make sure to explain them, or again, just reread your block from previous speeches) and your voter (essentially your impacts, probably fairness or education, but as long as you say the words "this is a voter" ill vote on it). theory is the same (interp, violation, standards, voter) but i'll be really hesitant to vote against the other team on it unless when you read your theory block in the 2ac/2nc/1ar, it says "this is a voter" or you yourself say "this is a voter"---otherwise, ill just reject the argument its on (probably the K or CP) but not vote completely against them on this issue. i love t and theory and can pretend to like condo, so if you have any questions, i'll be delighted.

For PF (4/2/23): tech > truth. i will judge off the flow. debate the way you want, but keep in mind that i am coming from policy and you should treat me like a tech judge. having been on the receiving end of interventionist rfds myself, i will strive to keep my personal bias to a minimum. however, that means that YOU have to do the work for me. do weighing. tell me what arguments matter more and why. be comparative. i value and reward the explanation and implication of arguments. don't just extend arguments—explain their importance and how it impacts the round. quality > quantity. on that note, make sure you are extending arguments correctly and fully (uniqueness/link/ILs/impact). i am good with speed/spreading, and 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, i won't hack for them. send speech docs with cut cards BEFORE speeches—this applies to any card you read, unless you decide to read it mid-speech. have warrants to back up your claims. 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, and defense isn't sticky. 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. dont steal prep or be disrespectful. this goes without saying but racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc. arguments/behaviors will not be tolerated by me and result in bad speaks and/or being dropped. admittedly, i am actually really intrigued by pf cross and all its theatrics. however, i won't evaluate cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

lastly, feel free to post-round me! i think its highly educational and good for debate. good luck everyone!

p.s. yes i know this pf paradigm is practically a copy of sachi patel's---she is and probably always will be my best connection to PF :)

QLS '24

Tech > Truth

Please add me to the email chain: ruoyunxu169@gmail.com

Please be clear on analytics

be nice, no matter what, do not interrupt your opponents' speech, at least raise your hand first, or you would trigger my ptsd

Topicality

Not really familiar with T...

Impacting your standard is very important.

Doesn't really like mixing burden arguments

A reasonable interp and counter-interp is more winnable than words that excludes a set of affs without clear definitions in cards.

Counterplan

If your CP is complicated, make sure you clearly explain the mechanism somewhere.

Explain clearly why pdb or pdcp work / does not work

Doesn't like tricks on cp, process cp does not make much sense to me usually

Disad

Not really familiar with DA

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

Turns case argument is very important.

A story/spin is usually more strategic than a dozen of cards that says the same thing.

Kritik

Not great for framework, better for substance.

• clearly explain the link, especially for representative K

I am more of a K debater and I am more than okay for "ridiculous K" and K tricks, go for them, you may be creative :D

K-Affs

Go for it, as long as you have link to rez, but disclose your k aff before rounds

Condo

Probably less likely to vote aff on condo...unless neg drop / has 10 off / has no link on multiple k / cps

QLS 24 (2A|2N)

USC 28 (2A)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

International student from China (+0.1 speaks if you go for China Heg Good). Debated 2 years core policy (Water, Fiscal Redistribution) and 1 year K (NATO) in high school. In college is mostly K with some policy in between. Overall, I think am a mediocre debater, but probably better as judge cuz I feel sucks if I am not flowing and we all waste another 2 hrs of our life here

I learned most things I know about debate from Chris Thiele - he has some unconventional philosophy regard debate and definitely somewhat affect me a little bit

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Yes Speech Doc. All doc should be Word Verbatimized. PDF caps speaks at 28 or below.

- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep

-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.

- 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

- 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.

- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)

1. No stock issue.

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.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA in the block with just one sentence with no link chain or impact calc at all

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

- Go for Hidden Aspec = "L ". The best offense for me for 1AR new response justification should be the model of debate that spreads random one line theory argument everywhere in the 1NC is freaking bad.

- 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 policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW)

- 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 could be an impact and I belive burnout is real. However, 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)

-My English sucks - if u phrase your DA/standard with fancy words explain that pls. If I can't flow it, you don't get it.

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

DA

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

CP

- 24/25 Update: TBH no one figure out this year hs topic really well. It seems like a pattern everyone is running process. Therefore, even though I hate process, my ballot rate on it this year is still 50/50. Competition c/a T and Theory

- 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." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

Ks

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

- Going for alt needs to 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. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop. Instead, I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year (Quantum Mechanics) and first semester in college (ESL K), 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 your K trick

LD:

- Trojan Invitation Update: Never judged LD this year. Know zero about the topic, but everything else is fine

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!

Elizabeth Zhuge

Add me to the email chain: ezhuge12@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: I debated one year of public forum in 8th grade, policy 9th-11th. 12th grade public forum. 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.

Speaks are assigned depending on how well you spoke, will not do 30 speak theory.

Will not vote on undeveloped one line voters hidden throughout with the intent of your opponent missing it because you spread through it.

------

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. Please don't trust me on this I will not make a good decision.

Framework: Probably not unless you make it very clear.

Open cross is fine. If your partner is answering/asking all the questions during your cross it probably won't look good though.

Please do impact calc/framing!

High threshold for voting on condo but if they have a ridiculous amount of off-case will probably consider it and you probably get some new args.

Can be convinced either way on judge kick, if no instruction will default to no judge kick.

Dropped arguments still need to be explained for me to vote on them.

If you're hiding a bunch of theory arguments and waiting for your opponent to drop it and blow it up I will be sympathetic to new answers.

------

LD

No experience at all. I won't know LD specific arguments and I also don't know the topic. Will judge it like policy. Refer to policy section.

------

Public Forum

Flow/tech

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.

If you paraphrase I will drop your speaks. Please send out a complete doc with highlighted evidence before the speech and not only upon opponent request. Be ready to send out marked copy if asked.

Please don't spread, talking fast is fine. (2-3x conversational speed.)

Will not vote on a bad K argument. Running Ks in PF is generally not a good idea because you won't have a lot of time to flesh this out, so please don't. My threshold for voting on this will also be higher than a normal argument, I expect more explanation and if it's clear you don't understand it and keep extending the same things over and over again I won't vote on it. I do not understand Identity Ks.

Will not vote on tricks.

Will flow and will vote on turns of the opponents case. If you are going solely for a turn you need to explain the whole story and why your link is more credible.