Hi my name is Shlok and I am and 8th Grader and Third Year JV/Varsity PF Debater at Quarry Lane.

I flow, but treat me as a flay judge

Tech > Truth

Please Weigh and Collapse. (Preferably in Second Summary)

Add me on the email chain at acharya.shlok@gmail.com

Speaks:

27 = Average

28=Good

29=Great

30= One of the best I have ever judged

Use debate@student.quarrylane.org and title the email chain adequately.

T/L

Been in debate for 4 years.

Don't have all that many hardcore preferences that aren't resolved by better debating.

Case Debate

Good case debate will especially get you good speaks---especially applicable to 2AC case debating; 'not reading new cards bc 2ac messed up' are words you should not want to hear.

DA

Implicate how different parts of the da interact with the advantage, how much of each par the da you need to win --- is any risk of a da sufficient given a solvent cp? Does turns case make any risk of a link sufficient? does dropped link mean that probabilistic uniqueness is irrelevant?

CP

Just like above; contextualize to what extent you need to win a net benefit in comparison to a solvency deficit.

Not great for textual plus functional as an interp. Better for function alone. Alright for textual alone.

Permutation do the counterplan > intrinsic perm

As a fellow 2A, I'll be sympathetic to theory, and think it's less arbitrary than most.

Lack of solvency advocate certainly justifies new 1AR answers.

T

My second favorite type of debate.

Impact calculus is key.

Aff vs K

Good link/link turns case, contextualized alt solvency to the 1AC, and case debating seem the optimal way to do it if this is your strategy.

Framework typically decides these debates so developing diverse offense for the neg would be the way to go; I'll be technical in determining and won't "It was a wash" my way out of it.

Neg vs K

Pick fairness or clash early on so you can develop offense; having both often conflict with one another, i.e going for the 'this ballot doesn't spill out; neg on presumption' 'debate doesn't change subjectivity' in tandem with 'voting neg iteratively spills up to models of debate as the community changes' seem to clash with one another; I think that negs need a mechanism of spilling out if going for models. This means starting the question of what my ballot does early, and being definitve about it.

TVA/SSD are great ways to mitigate AFF exclusion offense and thus should be well-developed; a good 1NR on TVA with solvency debating, impact calculus, puts a lot of pressure on the 1AR.

NOVICE / JV / MS

Make sure I can hear every word you're saying. this is a time to be getting better, and improving so demonstrate you've put in the slightest of effort.

I've judged these and it usually comes down to impact calculus, line by line, or resolving so if you've done all three well your speaks start at 29.

Misc

I only start flowing from the 1NC on case.

I won't look at docs unless a piece of evidence is explicitly disputed/brought up in a final rebuttal.

Number plz.

FR is NEG biased.

SPEAKS scale(stolen):

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

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

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

Shahzeb Khan

QLS '27

shahzebmk9@gmail.com

I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC . I am currently a speech and debate teacher at Quarry Lane school, Dublin CA . I am focused on Public forum debate. Before that I was the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA and focused on Policy debate (primarily varsity performance) . Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA and coached all events, flex policy as well as lay adapted teams. I have coached teams to TOC, NSDA, and CA state championship. I love the community I coach in. It is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

Public Forum paradigm.

I am new to coaching public forum but am able to adapt from a historical policy background of 20 years. Speed is fine. But I always emphasis clarity. Technical debate is good. I will flow. Debaters should collapse to key winning arguments in beginning in the rebuttals. New arguments in summary and final focus are discouraged unless responding to an abusive argument by an opponent. I am comfortable with flex, both straightforward policy or Kritiks both post-modern to performance. I'm fairly tabula rasa in the sense that you are responsible for upholding the framework for the debate. Theory is fun and I enjoy a well reasoned theory debate with impacted standards.

In regards to evidence analysis I am looking for you to read warrants and good data and extend it and use it throughout the debate. Offense is key. Think strategically and you will be rewarded. Most of all have fun. Decorum is essential.

hey! I’m tiffany a pf debater for quarry lane :)

tech > truth

I’m ok with a fast pace, just be clear. If you’re going really fast please send a speech doc.

Frontline in second rebuttal, and please collapse! Completely extend (uniqueness, links, impacts) offense and defense in summary and final focus. no new arguments in second summary or final focus. 

Please signpost, it really helps with flowing!

Interact with the other side don't just repeat your arguments, implicate your arguments (if something is conceded tell me why it matters)

Start weighing as soon as possible, do comparative weighing (link and impact preferably). I'll look to weighing first when evaluating the round.

Progressive args: I'm somewhat familiar with theory, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. Don't run frivolous theory. I'm not familiar with Ks, read at your own risk (explain it really well if you do run them)

For LD: I have no topic knowledge, so explain stuff well :)

speaks:

Clarity, be strategic, humor = good speaks

Reading cut cards and sending speech docs (before the speech) is good

Don't go too much over time, steal prep, or be disrespectful

Good luck and have fun!

quarry lane 27’

POLICY:

I flow in my head, I believe this to be an underrated strategy which saves paper

Automatic 30 if the 1AC has 5+ advantages or the 1NC has 11+ off

K:

familiar with most simple Ks (Baudrillard, Batille, Delueze, Moten, antiblackness, fem IR, etc.

when you read a high theory K such as cap, setcol or security I will likely be confused.

CP:

please read legit counterplans (concon, courts, uncooperative federalism, offsets, and delay counterplans are all amazing)

i will dock your speaks if you read cheating counterplans such as deficits, states, and “well researched” advantage counterplans that solve the aff.

AUTOMATIC 30 SPEAKS IF YOU READ THE KKK PIC

DA:

5-word intrinsic perms and fiat solves arguments are super good and fair, and are probably what the 2ar should be. Well-researched elections DAs are likely to outweigh and turn the aff.

T:

ever since I lost round 6 at dsds 1 to “T-in-the-U.S”, I have HATED topicality. Don’t read T unless you want an L+25

Case:

I will reward strategic arguments on case such as impact turns (i love wipeout), and hiding ASPEC and FSPEC under solvency. Every SPEC hidden under a case page will gain you +0.1 speaker points.

PF:

automatic 30 if you spread all of your speeches without analytics. the ideal condtructive should have disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, and a K

*this paradigm is a joke*

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.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Put me on the chain: quarrylaneyy@gmail.com AND debate@student.quarrylane.org

tech > truth

Hi, I'm Sam, a Junior at the Quarry Lane School. I've done PF debate for the past 5 years and I dabbled in Policy earlier this year.

Tech > Truth

I will be able to give a decent decision in Case/DA debates but will need more judge instruction with T, K, and complex CPs debates.