Hi my name is Shlok and I am and 8th Grader and Third Year JV/Varsity PF Debater at Quarry Lane.

I flow, but treat me as a flay judge

Tech > Truth

Please Weigh and Collapse. (Preferably in Second Summary)

Add me on the email chain at acharya.shlok@gmail.com

Speaks:

27 = Average

28=Good

29=Great

30= One of the best I have ever judged

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.

I've been told that I give bad speaks. That's probably true/MB. I'm starting to inflate a little bit.

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!

4th year on the Circuit

add me to the email chain: kyle.du@student.quarrylane.org

tech > truth

send speechdocs for constructive and rebuttal before speech, helps me flow the round

second rebuttal should frontline offense and have defense

extend args you're going for in every speech; not in one speech = dropped

no new weighing in second FF, no new args/evidence in ffs

signpost for all of your speeches, offtime roadmaps are good too

interact with opponents' frontlines and rebuttals. don't just repeat your own args

solid time allocation, efficiency, clarity, enthusiasm = good speaks

weigh. tell me why you your impacts matter more, why I should vote for you

im okay withspeed. if you think you go too fast though please send me speechdocs

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

not too familiar with theory and K's, run at your own risk

"It's 2024: you know how to send an email, it should be sent by start time" --- Jared Spiers

adityagandhi2022@gmail.com --- add me to the email chain

Quarry Lane HG

4th year on the circuit --- 2 PF, 2 Policy

I'm a 2A/1N if that matters

I'm DEFINETELY not that much older than you, so please don't call me judge, Adi works fine

I've been coached by these people and their paradigms will probably be way more detailed than I ever dream of --- Chris Thiele, Jared Spiers, TC Perez, and Iris Zhang

Don't be rude, steal prep, or clip cards

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

Shahzeb Khan

QLS '27

shahzebmk9@gmail.com

Top Level:

5th year debater - 3rd year policy debater

I will vote on anything, you do you - tech>truth

If you want to find a list of things I probably agree with go to thiele's paradigm

Being funny is good -- and will be rewarded

+0.1 if before you start your speech you say “I Love You Chris Thiele” and/or you make a Big Lebowski reference during a speech

I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC . I am currently a speech and debate teacher at Quarry Lane school, Dublin CA . I am focused on Public forum debate. Before that I was the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA and focused on Policy debate (primarily varsity performance) . Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA and coached all events, flex policy as well as lay adapted teams. I have coached teams to TOC, NSDA, and CA state championship. I love the community I coach in. It is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

Public Forum paradigm.

I am new to coaching public forum but am able to adapt from a historical policy background of 20 years. Speed is fine. But I always emphasis clarity. Technical debate is good. I will flow. Debaters should collapse to key winning arguments in beginning in the rebuttals. New arguments in summary and final focus are discouraged unless responding to an abusive argument by an opponent. I am comfortable with flex, both straightforward policy or Kritiks both post-modern to performance. I'm fairly tabula rasa in the sense that you are responsible for upholding the framework for the debate. Theory is fun and I enjoy a well reasoned theory debate with impacted standards.

In regards to evidence analysis I am looking for you to read warrants and good data and extend it and use it throughout the debate. Offense is key. Think strategically and you will be rewarded. Most of all have fun. Decorum is essential.

hey! I’m tiffany a pf debater for quarry lane :)

tech > truth

I’m ok with a fast pace, just be clear. If you’re going really fast please send a speech doc.

Frontline in second rebuttal, and please collapse! Completely extend (uniqueness, links, impacts) offense and defense in summary and final focus. no new arguments in second summary or final focus.

Please signpost, it really helps with flowing!

Interact with the other side don't just repeat your arguments, implicate your arguments (if something is conceded tell me why it matters)

Start weighing as soon as possible, do comparative weighing (link and impact preferably). I'll look to weighing first when evaluating the round.

Progressive args: I'm somewhat familiar with theory, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. Don't run frivolous theory. I'm not familiar with Ks, read at your own risk (explain it really well if you do run them)

For Policy & LD: I have no topic knowledge, so explain stuff well :)

speaks:

Clarity, be strategic

Reading cut cards and sending speech docs (before the speech) is good

Don't go too much over time, steal prep, or be disrespectful

Good luck and have fun!

quarrylaneam@gmail.com

Debate exactly how you would in front of Ishan Sharma or Archan Sen
+0.2 speaks if you make fun of Chris Thiele or make a Big Lebowski reference in a speech

I am currently a junior at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - sahanan345@gmail.com. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)

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.

Put me on the chain: frankyan53@gmail.com + quarrylaneyy@gmail.com AND debate@student.quarrylane.org

Hi, I'm Sam, a Junior at the Quarry Lane School. I've done PF debate for the past 5 years and I dabbled in Policy earlier this year.

Tech > Truth

I will be able to give a decent decision in Case/DA debates but will need more judge instruction with T, K, and complex CPs debates.