Peninsula Debate 2019-2021

Damien Debate 2021-2022

Top Level Stuff

Tech>Truth but truth doesn't hurt.

Offense/defense - zero risk only exists for theory.

An argument without warrants isn't an argument.

Dropped warrants are true - you still need some explanation to extend them though.

Neg on theory - infinite condo's good, judge kick, etc. Sole exception here is that while perf con obviously isn't a voter, I become very skeptical of certain "epistemology first/reps first" K framework arguments.

Inserts are fine.

Fairness is an impact.

Bias/Ideological Leanings

I'm a lot better for Ks v policy affs than I was a year ago, as they have become my most common 2NR. I especially have a soft spot for psychoanalysis as a security K. I don't have a predisposed opinion on framework (on the aff or neg) that can't be reversed with good debating (if you win that I shouldn't weigh the aff then I shouldn't weigh the aff, and vice versa).

Nevertheless, I always love and am familiar with classic policy arguments.

I'm probably not great for you if you read a K Aff, even simply on a level of familiarity, although I will do my best to adjudicate without bias.

Novice Notes

Try to only use word documents.

Don't say a count down before speeches.

Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").

For Lay Debate --

I will try to evaluate arguments as if I had never done debate. Please treat me as a parent judge.

Otherwise:
Jackson Frankwick

Email chain --- jacksonrpv@gmail.com

Please be nice.

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.

If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.

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.

Everything is probablistic unless dropped (existential inherency is true).

Put me on the email chain: boigalaxy8@gmail.com

TLDR: Framing and framework are good, use them to your advantage. I don't love theory, I won't vote on it unless it's highly contested usually, never drop theory, I like Ts, they're important overall, I love Counterplans and Ks - I will get confused if you do some extremely obscure K, DA's are just pretty much standard, Case is the Aff's offense, Off case is the Neg's offense, always do weighing, always looked for dropped arguments, always extend dropped arguments, yeah. I also flow everything to the best of my ability, I especially will flow arguments that are dropped and extended.

I vote GENERALLY more based on Tech > Truth.

Hello, I’m technically a 4 year debater, however I’ve mostly been doing debate seriously for only 2 and a half years, with that said I’ve been to many tournaments and have been to different camps and everything, so yea. Anyways, I used to do policy, I’ve switched to LD because of partner problems, and so you’ll see things in my paradigm that are a little Policy sided. <- last year, I have been pretty inactive in terms of participating in tournaments as a judge or debater, but I've still been looking at the new topics and different new cases that come along with them, so don't worry about me not knowing the topic at hand.

This part is mainly for newer people

Off-Case/Neg

T/Theory:I use to not like Ts and Theory much, and while that has remained largely true for Theory, I've turned a different leaf for Ts as I think they provide important ground debates for any given topic. If contested, Ts and Theories can be the most dangerous arguments in any given debate, as they are generally trying to contest whether the debate is fair or has any general benefit. This means that I can be forced to vote on T and Theory if it's extended by one team and unaddressed by another. I won't really vote on it however, if it just gets conceded by both teams without mention, because if both teams just drop it, then I can only assume that it's conceded on both sides.

CPs: Counterplans are great, there's not much else to say here. They are extremely diverse and can often times be extremely creative for both sides. There are also a lot of different tricky branches of counterplans that either side must address, which overall makes them very fun.

Ks:Ks are interesting, I feel like a lot teams are complete K teams or completely non-K teams, it's pretty interesting either way and I always enjoy listening to Ks. I dislike Ks when it's used in a very bad way, e.g. using it against a person who is new to debate, and this becomes even worse when the person presenting the K doesn't even know what they're talking about. I also can get confused by some very obscure Ks as I think most people probably can, and if you read that in the presence of me, I apologize but I will try my best to understand them. Otherwise, I understand K affs, K negs, and you can feel free to use Ks however you'd like.

DAs: I honestly don't even know what to say here lol, DAs are simple and an important and integral part of the Neg's off case, and rarely does a debate go without some sort of DA. The only reminder I have is to do impact calc against Aff.

Aff/Case

Obviously, case is the most important part of the Aff, it's your bread and butter and it's your main source of offense. There's not really much else to say here, read your adv and plan, and do framing + weighing, if you do everything good and the Neg isn't sufficiently answering your case, you should win the debate.

Theory: For theory, basically the same as Neg, it’s basically extra offence + win con for you.

peninsulalailai@gmail.com

Peninsula '24

Stanford '28

Novices, remember these things:

Do line by line. Try to answer your opponents' arguments in the order they made them.

Extend your offense first. This means if you're aff, extend your advantages first. If you're neg, extend your disadvantages first. Defense (responding to your opponents' offense) comes later.

I have found two extremes with evidence. In half of the debates I judge, cards get forgotten. In the other half, cards are overemphasized and rebuttals are referring to cites instead of making the actual argument. Remember to find a balance where you explain your arguments, but refer to authors to support your arguments.

Understand the arguments you are making. I understand it's easy to read the files your varsity teammates gave you, but really try to understand, please.

Ask questions!

Peninsula '24

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

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at UC Berkeley (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims. Debate is either a game or shapes subjectivity or both, who cares. Either way, please don't say offensive things.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

I'm a high school debater who's been debating for around 3 years now; I now debate in varsity policy.

Open to any kind of argument if you know how to go for them.

Just a general thing- make sure you actually extend the warrant of your card and no tagline extensions. If you don't point out which part of the card answers their evidence then I'm not going to read the card and try to find it for you.

Impact Calc- This is my favorite part of rebuttal speeches so don't do bad impact calculus. This is something I wish I had done more of in middle school and is super underrated. Do good impact calc.

DAs- OVs are helpful for both aff and neg- explain how you win on UQ, link, or impact like a story

CPs- Nothing in specific to say about these. They are good arguments and I'm pretty impartial to CP theory as well.

Ks- I'll be surprised if you read them in middle school. Make sure you have a clear understanding of it and know what the big technical terms mean and know how to go for one. It's better to be good at debating a DA and CP than to try to go for a K you have no idea about just because you think the other team can't answer it.

Theory- I'm pretty impartial to theory. Do a good job of debating it and I will vote for it.

Good luck y'all.

Peninsula 22, UCLA 25

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.

Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.

You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.

Be civil during the debate, and be clear with your speeches. It may be harder to hear your arguments due to the online setting.

Some important points in general for your rounds:

- Stay organized, give off-time roadmaps.

- Explain everything clearly and concisely.

- Weigh your impacts. Why should I consider your impacts over the other team's?

- Feel free to make analytics to new arguments you may have not heard before, but it is your job to make sure they are logical and sensible.

- Kritiks and T's are okay.

- Theory is okay as well, but have a reason why you are reading theory.

- Cross-ex is not a speech. Interact with your opposition's case.

- Do not steal prep. Your prep time stops running after you have clicked the "send" button.

Berkeley '26

Peninsula Graduate

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

If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.

You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making.

I'm tech>truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s). "They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone.

Speed is okay but you need to be clear.

I will probably protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments; there should be a version of the argument you are extending in the 1AR unless it is a new 2NR argument.

Cross-ex is important.

Please do impact calc/argument comparison.

Theory: I will vote on dropped theory, if explained, and I think condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise.

CPs: I will judgekick counterplans if there are no arguments about it, and the 2AR can have new judgekick bad args.

T: Fairness is a impact and fairness>skills/education. Reasonability is a question of how I evaluate the interpretation debate, not the we meet.

Disads: I don't think a disad can have zero risk (including when the aff makes framing arguments) (unless it's already happened) so you should debate as though the disad has a sizeable risk. Specific cards and arguments are best -- use evidence quality, if you have it, to your advantage. 

Ks: I think the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan should be weighed against the impacts to the links. I can be persuaded by framework arguments, but as with T, I think fairness>skills/education. Please do impact calc and make the links specific to the aff/case. I am very unlikely to vote for fiat is illusory type arguments or similar tricks.

K Affs: On framework, fairness>skills/education. I generally think that the aff should defend a hypothetical action of the United States federal government, but can be persuaded otherwise. Assume I do not know your theory, so you should make sure to explain your arguments clearly--I won't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for. For K v K, I am probably not the best, but if this debate happens, both sides should make the distinctions between the two Ks clear. I think the aff gets perms.

Definitely ask any questions you have before the round.

Be nice and good luck!

Please add me to the email chain: leftylexi12@gmail.com

If sending your docs on the email chain takes too long, it will count as prep.

She/her pronouns

If possible, cameras should be on at all times.

Talk slower than you would in person, especially if your microphone isn't good.

Quality > Quantity - I prefer less off case with more developed arguments.

I'm a high school policy debater, I've been doing policy debate for almost 4 years now.

I don't have any preferences on speed or specific argument strategies.

Your role as a debater should be making my ballot easy for me -- if you tell me to prioritize an argument or vote off of a specific reason, I will until proven otherwise.

Weighing, especially in the last speech, will get you further than you think.

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula & OCSA

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

Tech over truth. To minimize intervention, I will accept what you say at face value and strictly evaluate technical concessions.

That being said, I think debates are best when clash and research are maximal. Thus, affs should be topical and negs should say that the plan is bad.

Similarly, tech over truth should incentivize engagement, not be taken to the extreme of shallow argumentation & cheapshots. I won't artificially enforce an argumentative threshold to exclude an uncontested premise, BUT if litigated, I am easily persuaded that embedded theory, floating piks, laundry list impact evidence & cardless counterplans are clash-avoidance devices, not arguments.

Coach for Peninsula

My default role in a debate isn't an adjudicator or an educator but an audience that needs to be entertained.

But if you are like me in high school and believed winning is all that matters you should read more below...

Unchangeables

1. When going for the K, framework is defense. You need an actual link to win.
2. Any argument goes. Death good, racism good, whatever you want. I won't automatically punish you for it. But if they make an arg it's fair game. But hiding borjk = eye roll.

Plz put me on the email chain atStevenyu0923@gmail.com

Tech over truth, but I do find it easier to convince me of args I believe in.

Here few principles on getting my ballot:

Simplicity is good. The more complex an argument is, the more it deserves explanations. So, for the K teams with good link work, please cut out the 10 syllable poetic BS.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact. If it misses one, opponent gets new answers or won't vote on it.

You should debate as if I have 0 understanding of the topic. So, explain acronyms and such which especially matters for intricate process CP debates or T debates.

I find myself somewhat expressive during the debate. Feel free to use that to your advantage.

Speaks

Hiding theory is cowardice. You can and might win but speaks = nuked. The act of hiding theory (reading theory really fast but not in the doc especially in the block) makes you guilty, even if they spot you and answer it. This is my way of trying to deter the practice.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks up to a cap of 29.5.

Predispositions:

Fairness is likely an impact. Fairness paradox is likely true.

Condo is good.

Process CPs are bad but likely hard to win absent a good answer to arbitrariness.

Reasonability is bad.

Inserting rehighlightings is NOT ok, but aff needs to say that as a theory arg.

Predictability > debatability

Debates and characterizations of ev > ev quality itself

Timeframe matters, determines directionality of turns case. Turns case is only as probable as the rest of the DA. if DA is 1% and turns case is dropped, it net values to 1% so the aff weighs 99% of the aff vs 1% of the DA.

PIKs are probably bad but likely theoretically justifiable against a K aff. (went for this a decent bit)

Plan text in a vacuum is stupid.

Experience: (policy 2NRs)

Adv CPs + impact turns are my favorite 2NRs in high school. (more than 50%)

Adv CPs + topic generic DA (20%)

Process CP (10%)

Ks/K affs

Fighting against fairness on an impact/impact turn level seems to be an uphill battle. Instead, mitigating fairness with logical internal link indicts or how the aff's FW or how the T interp solves fairness is a much better take. For that exact reason, I tend to think I'm actually better for the K team in these situations. Clash is too defensive and I don't recommend it.

• K v T FW. Subjectivity formation here is important. If voting aff can't change minds, I intuitively believe no matter what impact turns, microaggressions, or whatever the neg has committed doesn't matter. For the K team, I believe an impact turn to legal precision/predictability here (with the ontology args to impact turn "legal credibility" or "academic expertise about the state" are best). I also believe impact turns, PIKs, and counter advocacies are creative ways to negate K affs.
• Policy v K. Middle ground is likely the best interp. Whoever debates with that is likely going to win framework. FW Ks are strategic, but I will respect you more if you debate middle ground as a K team and actually engage substance of case.

LD

God forbid I ever judge LD but if I do, please stay as far away as possible from Phil or Tricks.

Lay debate

Please go fast. I dislike lay debate.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep