Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 2
2022 — Dublin & Online, CA/US
PF Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi! My name is Sanjana and I'm a senior at Quarry Lane on the PF team.
Please add me to the email chain: sanabajaj21@gmail.com
- Tech > Truth
- Speed: I'm comfortable with a fast pace as long as you're clear. Please signpost (moving to their case, on their first contention, etc.) and be organized in your speech
- Evidence: Send speech docs w/ cut cards for case and rebuttal
- Please collapse strategically on your own contentions as well as your responses to your opponent's case. The debate should ideally be narrowed down after each speech (quality > quantity!)
- Completely extend any piece of offense (UQ, links, impacts) & defense through summary AND final focus for it to be evaluated. No brand new arguments should be made in second summary or final focus.
- Make sure to frontline in second rebuttal/first summary
- Comparative weighing (link & impact) is super super important. Don't just restate your impacts, explain why they come first. I'll evaluate arguments with the strongest weighing first.
- Progressive arguments: I do have some experience debating theory (disclosure good & paraphrasing bad) and would try my best when judging these debates! Don't read any frivolous theory. I have very little experience w/ Ks so I wouldn't be the best judge for that.
Always be respectful to your opponents! And it should go without saying but don't read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, as those won't be evaluated.
Debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)
Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.
I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.
Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane
If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:
1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.
2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.
3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.
4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.
5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.
Online Debate Update:
Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.
PF Overview:
All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.
Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.
Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.
I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.
K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".
I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).
Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.
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 -- Ithink 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
Hi! I debate Varsity PF for Quarry Lane.
Email: dk12@duck.com. Add me to the chain.
Tech ≥ Truth
It is mandated that:
- Evidence be disclosed on the wiki at least 30 mins before round (for varsity) and an email chain be started to share constructive/relevant cards (for everyone, novice + varsity)
- Your evidence be truthful. I am not a judge who will buy "the sky is green" even if it is extended properly and weighed. Your evidence must be reliable, unbiased, and fit to be discussed in a serious forum. Only after basic evidence ethics are met do I look at the flow. After that, I am a standard tech judge.
- You be respectful. Debate is stressful enough as it is. Let's not make it worse. Calm down, breathe, and talk at a reasonable tempo (<150 WPM without a speech doc)
- You weigh comparatively, extend, and not bring up new args in 2nd summary/final focus (if you want to win). Compare impacts starting in summary.
The way to my ballot is truthful contentions, well-weighed and terminalized. Run Ks at your own risk; I didn’t do any more prob than theory.Theory is good only if there is substantial evidence of abuse, friv theory will not fly.
Beyond that, relax, have fun, and ask any questions you have after round.
Hey, I'm a pf debater for Quarry Lane.
tech>truth
If you're reading this, I'm probably your judge at a Quarry Lane invitational novice debate.
I'm generally ok with whatever, so instead of listing things I like, I will list things I don't like:
I don't like it when you introduce new evidence in final focus
I don't like it when you don't weigh
I don't like it when you drop your opponent's arguments
I don't like it when you prep with your mic on (for online debates)
I don't like when you don't extend your own arguments in summary and final focus
I don't like it when you are racist/homophobic/etc.
More advice:
Extend your arguments in both summary and final focus
Anyway, the point of debate is to learn- so you are going to be making mistakes and that's ok.
Good luck!
I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.
tech > truth
please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. 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.
Hey! I'm Amrit (he/him) and I debated Public Forum for 4 years at the Quarry Lane School and am now a freshman at the University of Washington.
UPDATE FOR NSD Camp Tournament
ICAN NOTevaluate kritiks but I'm very open to theory shells
Tech > Truth (If you make the argument that 1+1 = 3 and it is extended properly and not responded to, I will vote on it even though 1+1 = 2)
Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com
I expect all cards for both constructive and rebuttal speeches before the speech is given. Teams that don't do this will have their speaks capped at 27.
Things I like to see in round:
- Frontlining in second rebuttal
- Extending defense and arguments in Summary
- interacting with frontlines when extending defense, do not extend "thru ink"
- doing comparative weighing (explain WHY you o/w on magnitude, timeframe, severity, etc.)
- ^^this is what will decide rounds for me
- no new weighing in second FF, very minimal weighing in first FF, most of your weighing should come in summary (even better if it's in rebuttal)
Speaks:
- +0.5 if you read cut cards in case
- +0.5 if you are disclosed on the wiki with highlights and cites
- Automatic 30 if you read solely from cut cards in both rebuttal and constructive
Progressive:
Shells:
Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk
Kritiques:
I know less than nothing about these, please do not run unless I'm the only judge on a panel who doesn't know them.
Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want. kushvijapure13@gmail.com
Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks
Debate:
Pref shortcut
1- LARP/Generic Ks (Academy, Baudrillard, Cap, Setcol, Security, Pess)
2- K-affs/Complex Ks
3- Phil (Kant,Hobbes, Butler) + Viable Shells (ie: OS, Contact Info, Disclo, Paraphrasing if its PF, etc..)
4- Friv Theory/ Trix
5/Strike- Dense Phil
General
I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of (X lies where I fall between the two).
Expressive (your face not mine) -X--------------------------------------- Stoic (your face not mine)
Policy--------------------X-------------------------Kritik
Trix------------------------------------------------X-Args with warrants
Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth
Read no cards------------X-----------------------Reads every card
Conditionality good-------------------------X----Conditionality bad
States CP good------------X-----------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing---X---------------------------Politics DA not a thing
Always util----------------------------------X-----Sometimes not util
UQ matters most---------------------------X-----Link matters most
Fairness is an impact------------X-------------------Fairness is not an impact
Presumption votes aff-----------------------X------- Presumption clearly neg
Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity---X------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption-------X-------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face----------------------X-------Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev----------------------------X-------------More ev
"Insert this re highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read
CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency
expressive [my face not yours]-X------------------------stoic (my face not yours)
Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't
Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg
AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:
AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)
"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"
Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies
New affs bad------------------X------------------------Old affs bad
Aff on process competition-------X--------------------Neg on process competition
CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X---Real arguments
Line by line--X-----------------------------------implied warrants/answer
Speaker Points:
I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:
For LD:
30 --- Top speaker
29.6-29.9 --- Late elims
29.3-29.5--- Mid elims
29-29.3 --- Debating to clear
28.5-28.9--- Even
28.0-28.5 --- Below even
Below 28 --- Other
Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics
For CX:
29.5+ — Top Speaker
29.3-29.4 — Top 5-10
29.1-29.2 — Top 20
28.9-29 — Top 25% maybe clearing on speaks
28.7-28.8 — Top 50% wouldn't clear on speaks
28.3-28.6 — Top 75%
28-28.2 — Top 90%