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!

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.

don't just spam cards and read pre-written blocks -- engage with the other side via line-by-line and clash. explanation is far more important than spamming ev, and you should effectively use ev 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. signpost -- 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 ev. give judge instruction.

speed is fine. clarity is better. slow down on analytics and tags.

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

voting issues are typically a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

comparative impact calculus and internal link analysis is really important. explain why your interp solves your offense. 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

competing interpretations any day. reasonability is arbitrary and makes no sense. if their interp is bad, you'll win your c/i and standards anyway.

we meet is a yes/no question. caselists are great. do ev comparison and win ils into your offense (esp predictability).

k

i'm better for more stock k's (cap, security, setcol, identity stuff), but explanation overcomes most barriers.

i am agnostic on fw impacts, but i'm sympathetic towards 2ar recontextualizations bc 1ars on fw are painful. this applies most when the block is sloppy on lbl and makes vague c/apps from the overview.

alt explanation is crucial -- what does it actually do? if the alt can solve a majority of the aff, that massively lowers the threshold for every other part of the debate. 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 fun. i prefer functionally competitive cps with solvency advocates, but that's basically impossible on this topic.

i'm ok for process competition, but smart interps and defense like solvency advocates is convincing.

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

presumption flips aff if you go for a world.

da

impact calc is great. turns case analysis is 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 to me, but i'm fine for kvk or piks.

fine for either fairness or clash, but choose wisely based on the aff and their strat. tvas and ssd are great.

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.

i like yao yao's paradigm a lot.

QLS 24 (2A/2N)

USC 28 (2A)

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 - plz explain the case clear : )

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 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. 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.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA with just one sentence with no link chain 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

- Hidden Aspec = "L " unless u carded in the 1NC.

- 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 policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)

- 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. History already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case

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

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

DA

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

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

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

CP

- 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.

- Ethics violation/Call out: 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 and first semester in college, 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:

- 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.

------

Policy

Speed: Please go slower or be clear. If I don't know what you're saying I won't flow it. Spreading through your analytics makes them unintelligible and they won't be on my flow.

Ts: I'm probably not good for this but will vote on it.

Ks: Fine.

CPs: Fine.

DAs: Fine.

K Affs: I'm probably not good for this. If you're running a K Aff I will need a lot of explanation.

Framework: Probably not unless you make it very clear.

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

Please do impact calc/framing!

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

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

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

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

------

LD

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

------

Public Forum

Not up to date on the topic. If you're running policy arguments in PF-style I will probably not be happy but if you run it on a policy level I might be more willing to vote for it.