Middle School Policy 0315
2024 — Zoom, CA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePeninsula High School.
Add me to the email chain: aadibhagat2008@gmail.com
Debated for like 2 years ish.(Policy)
Tech>Truth
I can't really understand spreading so be clear if you chose to do so.
Don't assume I understand all your jargon, explain arguments well.
You don't have to stop prep when the email is sent, so you can stop it when you are done preparing, but I do expect the process of the email being sent to be quick and for both teams not to steal prep.
Extend your offense first.
"DON'T KEEP YAPPING"-a wise debater.
Theory:
I WILL vote on APSEC.(Most of the time)
Don't just reread your theory arguments in the block/2nr,explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa and extend your standards.
Also, if you have Aspec blocked out and you show that to me after round I will give 30 points.
If the AFF/NEG answers the theory argument you made, don't just extend it bc of my paradigm but extend at your your own risk.
"Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start, it's important everyone is ready."
"Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not."--Brandon Lin
Please add both emails to the email chain:
Please disclose before round
Tech>Truth
Won't vote on AdHoms
If you hit a Suiiiiii after each speech, it will bolster your ethos and make me more likely to vote for you.
Telling me who your favorite player is, and I'll either dock or add points depending on how valid I think it is.
Coach @ Asian Debate League
Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017
Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021
Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com
My biases:
I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.
For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.
I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.
I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.
I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.
Status quo is always an option=judge kick
How I judge:
I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.
I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.
I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.
For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)
I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.
I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.
**Pronounced (Kay-pen)
victorkang@pacificamerican.org
Tech > Truth
TKOs are funny
Will increase speaks if you read one full section of the U.S. Constitution
Peninsula '26
peninsulamkdebate@gmail.com
Top Level: Tech > Truth.
No marked copies if it's only one or two cards.
Asking for skipped cards/positions requires prep or cross-ex time.
Time your own stuff and keep track of prep.
Open-cross if fine, don't ask if it is. Don't interrupt your partner.
Disclose at least 20 minutes before the round.
Tech > Truth.
All theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team unless dropped or its condo. I will evaluate the condo debate purely technically.
Good for T, Disads, and all counterplans.
For Middle Schoolers only: If you read a process CP and the other team can't answer it, and then youdon't go for it, and win, I will give you much higher speaks.
Fairness. That's all I'm going to say about kritiks.
Reading any kind of "Pomo" K is the equivalent of speaking Mandarin in front of me: I will claim to know what you're talking about but will only understand 10% of it.
People you can roast for 0.1 extra speaker points-
Jordan Yao
Aiden Kwon
Iva Liu
Scott Wheeler
Jonathan Yang
Jeremy Kim
Vincent Liu
Anyone in the BEJJP Lab
Anyone on the Pen Debate Team
Peninsula 2025.
Conditionality is good.
The negative should disprove the desirability of the affirmative. Case specific strategies will result in higher speaker points and a greater chance at victory. Process counterplans and generic framework critiques are not ideal and will be an uphill battle.
In particular, critiques should make sense in a world where the plan happens. Framework should not be employed as a procedural violation to invalidate the entirety of the 1AC.
The affirmative should prove the desirability of the resolution. In other words, not a big fan of critical affirmatives.
Peninsula '27
Add me to the email at peninsulaLL27@gmail.com
——————————————————————————————————
Novices
I know debate can be hard, just have fun and do your best! I'll try to evaluate as fairly as I can with the least judge intervention.
peninsula '26
add me to the chain: planfocusistrue@gmail.com
answer arguments line by line and do impact comparison. put the reasons why you win first.
I will try my hardest to fairly evaluate debates since everyone spends their time to be here and win.
Ask questions. I will answer (to the best of my ability, which is not the best if I'm being honest).
Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.
It is true that every debater enters a two hour round wanting to win, and any argumentation otherwise will result in an immediate vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness, because you have just said that you do not want to win.
"When debaters walk in the room, they expect the judge to render a fair decision, not to rob them of years of hard work and dedication by substituting their personal biases for the arguments presented."
I try to make my speaks normally distributed (u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).
Prep ends when email is sent.
Topicality is primarily a question of truth.
Debate is better when debaters are dressed business professional (applies to online debate).
Everything is probabilistic. You can win the full weight of a dropped argument and easily still lose the debate.
Update MSTOC '24
"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:
I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.
"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke
CX, then LD, then CX then LD.
My history in this activity is just Lay -> Phil -> K -> Theory -> Kant/Critical Combo -> LARP with varying degrees of success.
Operating Procedure
I like debate. Here because I want to be here. Will give your speeches full attention. Taken from Pat's paradigm, "That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster"
Definitely on paper in person, 60-40 towards paper for online debate. Indifferent to being on the chain.
How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)
Respect. It's good. But so is answering arguments in the order they were made. Tell me why you win.
Policy 2023-24
Background. Cut lots of cards for this, I know a lot of the core affirmative and negative positions on the topic. I didn't debate this topic as much as I wanted to due to circumstances beyond my control, but I'm confident in my adjudication ability as I've spent many weekends thinking about it.I worked with some younger debaters to various degrees / did pre-round prep / cut cards / drills. These kids ran Poly-Crisis and Degrowth.
Econ, Politics, and Elections need updated uniqueness evidence - reading cards from last yar when your opponent has one from last week puts you in a difficult spot.
Second constructive should leverage positions in your first. Sandbagging is terrible. You should present your best version of your argument as soon as possible. I don't understand why you need eight "econ high now" or "biden wins now" cards in the 1NR but you do you.
I dislike novice T debates because no one does any weighing or line by line at all. If this isn't you, this is a challenge to change my mind. I dare you, and if you succeed in this endeavor you will receive no less than a 29.1. Please don't use topicality or theory to exclude less experienced debaters.
2NRs should get to the case and 2ARs should get to the disadvantage -reiterating your points means nothing amidst uncontested points by your opponent.
Condo prob not that good but not that bad.
If you're reading like > 5 off case positions in novice consider why and how this will help you or your opponents learn... but also they have eight minutes to answer it so tough luck for them I guess? If this paradigm says anything it's that I prefer depth.
LD
I do/did this. Topic familiarity high.
Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"
Do anything
Phil/LARP > K > T/Th >> Substantive Tricks >>>>> Theoretical Tricks
Theory prob DTD. Make reasonability offense.
I'm the only person associated with my school in many, many years who gives a damn about philosophical arguments. Like, I read these. I also read the books they're cut from, and I think they're an integral yet unfortunately fading part of this activity. Cards are cool but like you don't need them. I really don't get the obsession with "I have a card and you don't" - like we're all smart people who can justify things...
he/him/his | ADL; FPS'26
Hello! I'm currently a high schooler at Taipei Fushing Private School in Taiwan. I mainly do CX debate and am currently in my 4th year of debating CX, but I previously did around 3 years of PF
*This paradigm was inspired by Tyler Prochazka, Gabe Esquivel, and Lily Ottinger's, meaning if you don't understand anything I wrote here, reference their paradigms :D*
General
T/L
I'm open to any argument, but please make sure that your arguments are supported by warrants, even if it's theory. I will not consider your claims without warrants, even if they are conceded. However, if the opposing team fails to challenge a poorly warranted claim, I will assume it to be true unless it's nonsensical.
Make sure you do clash between arguments. This means you answer your opponents' arguments, do line-by-line, and set yourself up for your strategies in your later speeches. Evidence comparison and impact weighing are good. Explain why your arguments are better than your opponents'.
Tech > truth, meaning if you have a card that backs your statement, it only matters to me if you impact it out for me in terms of why that means I buy your argument.
Quality > quantity, meaning develop strong, lasting arguments instead of running a bunch of weak ones. Despite that, I still respect any choice you find strategic but be prepared to defend your choice!
Clarity > speed. You can go as fast as you desire, but if it's not clear or if I can't understand it, then I won't take it into account in my RFD
Frame the ballot! State how the RFD should be written if I were to vote for you. If you do not provide any ballot-directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD based on my understanding of the arguments presented. Therefore, it's in your best interest to provide clear instructions on the RFD.
Make sure you time yourself! I will still time them but it's wise to keep track of how much time you have during your speech.
CX
T/L
Cross-x isn't explicitly "closed," but each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.
Please do not be racist, sexist, violent, etc in a way that may be hazardous to someone in the debate. I would prefer not to judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments in a debate.
Speaks range from around 26.5 to 29, but I have and will give higher or lower speaks depending on how the round goes.
Please disclose 30 minutes prior to the round. Shady disclosure practices are discouraged.
Topicality
Caselists are very important.
The presence of other NEG positions is not a defense to a ground argument. The AFF being disclosed is not a defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.
I default to competing interpretations, so do a lot of clash and evidence comparisons
Disads
They're great!
Impact turns are underrated.
Counterplans
I will NOT judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise.
Conditionality seems to be necessary for debate, but I agree that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not good. Increased condo usually leads to worse debating, but do what you need to do. I don't lean on any side, particularly for this.
I'm open to any theory arguments as long as you develop clear warrants for them.
PICs of any sort are fine in my opinion.
Kritiks
Not a heavy K debater.
Framework needs warrants and specific impacts to them for both AFF and NEG. Provide judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose the framework interpretation. Weighing the AFF against the K is reasonable in my opinion.
Read specific links to the AFF if you're NEG.
Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The NEG can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
Planless/K-AFFs
I hate them with a fiery passion, but you're free to run them if you'd like. I'd probably lean on NEG, however.
T-USFG is a great strategy. I especially like TVA arguments with solvency advocates or examples of SSD. Make sure to explain why your impacts outweigh theirs.
Presumption is also a great strategy against these types of arguments.
SD/PF
In general, make sure you clearly explain your arguments to me. Do line-by-line and impact calculus. I personally value magnitude the most, followed by probability then timeframe, but how you structure and place your arguments is up to you!
Peninsula '26
Add me to the E-Mail Chain: troyalexwilson@gmail.com
Tech>Truth
Clarity>Speed
Since I'm probably judging novices, just extend your arguments with clear warrants. Your goal is education, so go for things you want to understand or want to get more experience in. I'll try to give you a good RFD, but fair warning, I might not be the best at explaining things.
T: Warrant your arguments well, I believe fairness is an impact but will vote on anything technically winning. Not the best judge for this, but I believe I can hold my own.
DA: Give Impact calc, overviews if it's confusing, will probably be fine regardless. Links > UQ, but link warranting is important.
CP: Explain them well. I usually err neg on condo.
K: Not the best judge for this. I understand generic K's, but anything confusing please give a simple, efficient overview. Framework, I'm usually middle ground.
Open Cross Examination is good
Keep track of your own time
Peninsula ’26
Add me to the email chain:
Debate is a game with a winner and a loser. The fundamental objective and driving force is to be the best and win the game. Do whatever is strategically deemed of you to have the best chance of winning, as long as it is not constrained by ethics or by your morality. This means different things to different people, so I won't judge based on what you think good and effective technical debating is.
However, for argument selection, please do not read racism good, death good, or any other argument that pertains to discrimination/suicide good in any way. Those arguments are never okay, even as a joke. Other than that, you're good to go.
Be nice. We are peers playing a competitive game, but it doesn't need to become a hateful experience. Focus on your mental attitude and treat others the way you want to be treated.
I'm mostly going to be judging novice debates, so I'm going to emphasize a couple of things.
1. Do impact calculus! Give me a clear explanation of the impact you are going for and why it might be more important than the impact they are going for.
2. Flow! It's the main aspect of debate. Answer all of the arguments they have made, and when they drop yours be quick to point it out.
3. Please ask questions!!! I don't expect you to debate your best but I want you to improve and use these rounds as building blocks to improve future debates. Even generic questions like "Thoughts on x speech" are good and appreciated.
Have fun! Do your best and make sure to smile :).