Middle School Policy 1216
2022 — Zoom, CA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAdd me to your email chains! shrey.agarwal.ca@gmail.com
I am a Sophomore at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School
In general Tech>Truth
I am not extremely familiar with K's yet, but I am fine with everything else as long as your arguments are cohesive and well supported.
I give 26-30 speaks and if you make me laugh (in a way that doesn't offend the other team) I will toss you a .5 bonus especially if you mention "monkeys."
I don't mind seeing generic arguments as long as they are well explained and thought out.
I am totally fine with spreading as long as it is coherent, I WILL NOT FLOW if it is not clear. You don't need to be too loud just enough so I can hear you.
SIGNPOST/give an order before your speeches.
On K's more specific I understand them at a debatable level but if your K is complex and has extremely complex language, please explain it in a way that I can understand. I am pretty sure I will understand most K's but just in case. I read Imperialism and Securitization K's and feel comfortable understanding the basics of Queer theory and gender K's as a whole.
Also mark your own docs CLEARLY please and I will not deduct prep for marking and sending them out so please do so! It helps with organization and keeps the debate easier to manage for everyone.
Hi! I'm Mira :) I did policy for 4 years in high school (Taipei American, class of 2024) and currently debate at the University of Michigan. I qualified to the TOC 3x & Nats 4x in hs
i'm sticking to a 10 second summary because my paradigm keeps getting deleted so i don't want to spend 208320840 minutes typing whole paragraphs:
policy:
- email for chain: mirab2508@gmail.com
- i primarily went for DA + CP, DA + case, or process CPs. tech > truth. soft left impacts are true and more ppl shld read it. impact turns are fun (no death good, suicide good, life has no meaning, etc). pls explain ur Ks if its anything beyond cap or setcol. k affs must have connection to topic. fairness is an impact. pls weigh ur stuff. many thanks
pf:
- everything in the final focus needs to be in the summary
- don't just read like 2 arguments against your opponents arguments and proceed to read a bunch of new contentions in your rebuttals. the rebuttal is responding to what the other team said, it's not a time to read new contentions unless you finished answering their stuff.
wsd:
- competed in worlds at nats for my senior yr
- weigh ur arguments in the reply
- dont introduce a third argument in ur second speech if it isn't going to be developed / helpful - i would rather u give more answers against the other team's arguments than give a third just bc it's the norm
Updated for the prestigious CFMLP Camp Tournament Lab
Peninsula '84
3x MSTOC Champion
4x TOC Champion
4x NDT Champion.
Top Level: Truth > Tech. Nothing you say or do will convince me to go against my own personal beliefs. I will not disclose what they are, that is for you to figure out. There is one exception: I am a faithful Christian, and believe every speech must begin by evangelizing with a bible verse.
I will not be flowing or looking at the doc, do not bother adding me to the email chain. Your speed is the only thing that matters, I do not care about clarity. Clipping is encouraged, just don't get caught. You must stake the round on any challenges or allegations, and they must be recorded. Just be aware that everyone will think you're a sad loser who can't win normally.
If you do the fiat thing, strike me. Same with any 'imagining of alternative epistemologies.' I am an old man whose mind is jaded and empty, so I lack the capacity to do 'scenario planning' or any imagination whatsoever.
I believe in post rounding. If you personally debate me for 30 minutes, I will consider changing my ballot.
Counterplans - Conditionality is bad. You must justify why you get the status quo as an advocacy because I think it is slightly abusive. in fact, the negative must provide robust theoretical justifications for why they get to read against the 1AC.
Topicality - I will only evaluate interpretations cut from the Oxford Dictionary. Any other definitions are unpredictable and imprecise, which will result in a loss.
Disadvantages - I do not evaluate the link. It may be generic as you wish. Conversely, uniqueness evidence must be dated within three days of reading, as I think staying up to date is very important. Impact quantity > Impact quality. I do not care about impact calculus. At the end of the round, I will add up all the total impact cards read and write a ballot for the team who read the most.
Critiques - I love the critique. Links should be to the status quo and framework is all that matters. If you refuse to explain your alternative, it does not matter to me. Obscure critique jargon should be used as often as possible - confusing me confuses your opponents which is the best way to win.
Non-topical affirmatives - I believe that debate is bad and is never a game. Games are fun. Debate is not. I do not remember the resolution (it was something about sui generis) and will likely not evaluate fairness as an impact. Life is unfair, deal with it.
Speaker points will be allocated using the full 0-30 scale. If you are average debater, you will receive nothing more than a 15.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Phil - (I won't be using this for the camp tournament)
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-
Aiden Kwon
Iva Liu
Scott Wheeler
Jonathan Yang
Jeremy Kim
Vincent Liu
Anyone in the BEJJP Lab
Anyone on the Pen Debate Team
Peninsula '24
Add me to the email chain: peninsulalailai@gmail.com
adamlu4023@gmail.com
Peninsula Freshman, did MS debate, though I don't spend too much time on debate (to my detriment) so I won't be as good as most other Peninsula judges you've gotten before. *I do Policy
Don't say anything goofy
none of that "3 2 1 time starts now"
If you beat me in a hypixel classic duel pre-round, auto 30 speaks.
K affs are fine, as long as you explain it well enough. I won't vote for it if I can't understand it. Also, high chance of losing to T, will put more weight to fairness.
Ks are also fine, but do good link work.
Speak clearly. My flowing is sub-par, so make sure I'm not missing anything. Don't jump between flows.
Fine with all policy arguments.
NO GOOGLE DOCS NO GOOGLE DOCS NO GOOGLE DOCS NO GOOGLE DOCS NO GOOGLE DOCS NO GOOGLE DOCS
Lincoln Douglas:
idk a thing. Explain all ur arguments clearly.
(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.
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.
Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula & OCSA
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.