PHS Middle School Intra Squad 5
2023 — Kansas City, MO/US
PHS US Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAbout Me
Hello, I am a student in the Pembroke Hill School, Class of '26. This is my second year doing Policy Debate (and OO). I have debated UBI in PFD as a Middle Schooler and NATO as a CX Novice
Add me to the email chain: mamin26@pembrokehill.org (Speechdrop is preferred). Always disclose evidence.
TL;DR
-
Read at a conversational speed, and please don't spread
-
Tech > Truth, but I still really like truth args
-
Show me why your impacts are more probable and more existential, and how you solve it (Impact Calc!!)
-
For Policy: Win on the stock issues
-
Give me lots of judge instruction
-
Provide me with multiple reasons/alleyways that show why you deserve my ballot
-
Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cross-examination
-
I will try my best to make the vote for the deserved team and give comments for everyone in the ballot
General
-
I will listen to any arg, but I prefer Policy args over K args.
-
Go at a conversational speed, or if you want to speak fast, please don't spread- especially if your opponents would not be able to understand you. You will be risking my ballot if you read too fast.
-
Provide some judge instruction and tell me why you deserve my vote.
-
I really like impact debates, but I must be convinced that there are strong links.
-
I love passionate rounds, but if someone is clearly being rude to another debater, I may consider voting against that person.
AFF/PRO
-
Show me that you know your case
-
Demonstrate why the squo is bad and how you can solve.
-
Make sure your case/advantages outweigh.
-
Policy specific: Make sure you win all of the stock issues.
NEG/CON
-
Demonstrate to me why the squo is fine, or (specifically for Policy) show me how your CP or K solves AFF harms.
-
Explain to me how you have won at least one major argument (or stock issue for Policy) in the round.
I will Dock Speaker Points if a debater is:
-
Stealing prep time. I may be more lenient if it's for obvious difficulties.
-
Sliming during final speeches (I have been flowing the round, I'll know when someone's lying).
-
Interrupting or not letting your opponent speak during cross-examination.
-
Being rude or mean, as well as laughing at an opponent.
-
Saying inappropriate things that would be hurtful to groups of people. Like being an -ist or -phobic.
Speaker Point Boosters:
-
Know your speech- Make sure you can adequately answer questions during cross-examination, and don't speak just to waste time.
-
Organize your speech docs and give me a roadmap before time starts
-
Mentioning specific warrants in your evidence
-
Using evidence from earlier speeches to respond
-
Using cross-examination to show a contradiction in their case.
-
Providing judge instructions
-
Making eye contact with the judge
-
Being nice.
-
Smile! This is your time to shine.
Policy
T Debate
-
I will not vote for a T, but I might if an AFF is clearly outside of the resolution.
-
Reasonability args will be heavily considered in a T debate. However, the NEG can probably argue against that adequately and convince me otherwise.
-
If the NEG runs a T and the AFF drops it, then I may vote NEG just on the T.
K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory
-
Policy debate over K args.
-
If you want to run K, I would like lots of judge instruction. Otherwise, I will lose you.
-
I will weigh the K to the AFF, unless I am convinced otherwise.
-
I don't prefer K AFFs, but I'll tolerate them.
-
FW args are fine, but don't be outrageous about it.
-
Theory args are good. If you can prove to me that your opponents' args are ruining the spirit of debate (education, fairness, etc.), I'm all for it. However, it's not something that I will vote for exclusively.
DA
-
Good Link > Good Impact. If there is a weak link, then I can't even consider the impact.
-
Prove to me that the DA truly links to the plan, then we can talk impact.
-
UQ is important to prove, but I do ultimately believe that the DA must prove that the plan leads to a serious impact
-
I don't mind terminal impacts. Again, it heavily depends on strong links.
-
Ultimately, if you can win on impact calc on the case (with a HEAVY emphasis on Probability and Magnitude), I will vote for you.
CP
-
PICs are fair game, but I do feel like the AFF can provide solid theory args to attack them, so that's an exciting back-and-forth for me.
-
I am fine with condo, but AFF generic args can easily convince me not to vote for it. Again, I don't mind it too much. Whoever wins on fairness & education will win the condo good/bad debate. If you do condo, go for at least or 3 args.
-
I agree that CPs are subject to fiat, but the AFF can convince me otherwise, especially if they're up against a multi-actor fiat.
-
For NEG to win CP, they MUST win on Solvency Deficit and that the CP doesn't link to the net-benefit.
Case
-
I go under the philosophy that 1AC cards are some of the best cards that are used in a debate round. I would love it if some of those cards could be used here and there in later speeches.
-
I am cool with re-highlightings, and I will read them.
PFD
-
I have a year of experience in middle school, so I'm not the most experienced.
-
No counterplans for CON, even if it sounds like PRO is making a plan.
-
Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.
-
Explain your voting issues in the final speeches, and why you have access to those voting issues.
-
Besides that, I will likely judge the round like I would for Policy, so please bear with me.
LD
-
I have no experience in this event.
-
I will judge the round like I would for Policy, as well (that includes my stance on K's, CP's, and case args).
-
Show me why your opponent's case leads to worse impacts and why your case solves, and you'll likely win.
Overall
If you can demonstrate proper debate technique and display why your side will make or is making the world a better place, I will vote for you. Looking forward to a fun round!
Pembroke Hill '26
Add me to the email chain: hboyle26@pembrokehill.org
he/him
Second year of Policy Debate
NATO, Fiscal Redistribution
My way of evaluating debates has been largely influenced by Parker Hopkins, Justin Smith, Alicia Stout, and Jimmy O'Connell
I really love debate and love to judge people who feel the same!
General
Tech > Truth
I feel like the impact debate has become a lost art
I love the link debate
Whatever speed is fine
Please put analytics in the Speechdoc
Clarity > Speed, I will call out "Clear" three times per speech before I stop flowing
My usual 2NR is case turn + DA + CP
Make sure you do a lot of judge instruction if you want me to vote for you
My starting speaks are 28.5
I enjoy passionate debates/debaters, and will add speaker points if you are aggressive
No homophobia, racism, sexism, any hate in general
Policy
T's
Don't just throw a T out there to get a T out there
I honestly like reasonability arguments from the AFF, but I think it is fairly easy for the NEG to convince me otherwise
Framer's Intent (only if your evidence is very, very good) > Precision = Ground = Limits > Predictability (explain to me in round which I should prefer)
K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory
I used to consider myself a policy debater, but have started to shift my debating
If you go for real world arguments, you will have to prove to me that there will be an impact
Im still on the side that the Aff should be allowed to weigh their plan, but can be convinced otherwise
If theres not a clear or good link, its gonna be a lot harder to get my ballot
My usual 1AR was FW, Extinction o/w, Cap Good (if applicable)
Saying fairness is an I/L and not an impact is like saying nuke war is an I/L and not an impact
K Affs are cool, but really try to relate to the resolution
T is the way to go
I think theory in any facet is important to debate
Condo is probably good
DA
If you do good job explaining how the DA o/w + turns case, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY
But the impact debate is usually stale on DA's, so I tend to evaluate the link debate the most
CP
The Aff lets the Neg get away with too much stuff with CP's
I have developed a love for good PICs and Advantage CP's
Don't read a cheaty or basic CP and your speaks will reflect that
Case
I really like Inherency arguments
I am a big fan of rehighlights
A 2NR with lots of case will always make me happy
Please do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR
Anything Else
I am happy to discuss my thoughts further before rounds if you ask
I flow CX
PFD
I competed in PFD for one year during Middle School
Just weigh your impacts and have good links, and whoever does that better will win
Most likely I won't know too much about the topic, so explain it well in round
LD
I have never competed in LD, but I know the basics of the style of debate
Thank you for reading and good luck!!!
2nd year cx debater at pembroke hill email: fmurphy27@pembrokehill.org
tech>truth
condo is aii
dont be bad at spreading, otherwise just dont spread
no judge kick unless instructed
Hi I'm Sarina and I'm a second year policy debater at Pembroke, also compete in duo, di, poetry, and poi so i can get down to some interp event judging
JDI '23, MNDI '24
Add me to the email chain! sweinman27@pembrokehill.org
cx
2A/1N, I love you my fellow 2As
case
A personal pet peeve of mine is when 1ns go for uq, link and impact. You only need to win one to win the impact doesn't happen and solves aff impact. Also inherency should be a contention. There are so many teams who have great cases but can't articulate why the plan needs to happen. That's just a general easy vote for neg on presumption if they bring it up. Use case o/w to explain to me how you use your offense.
disads
I very rarely vote for the status quo, yk since its a little messed up. I think if the 2nr does go for the disad w/ no counterplan it should really be more of an impact debate unless your opponent has such a ridiculously terrible/dropped their link.
Stop running generic disads with a net benefit to the counterplan. There's a good chance your offense is going to be self demeaning. disads with the best links to the plan are the disads you should use as a net benefit. Don't run econ da when both you and the plan spend a significant amount of money :/
cps
I like counterplans, get ready for the yap. There are 3 things I consider when evaluating a cp; does it have a net benefit? is the cp mutually exclusive? and does the risk of the net benefit outweigh the solvency deficit? Both sides need to be weighing the net benefit vs the solvency deficit.
I dislike multiplank and weirdly complicated advantage counterplans. I'm more inclined to vote for perm do the cp and allow more outrageous perm abuse if the counterplan has like 17 advantages or is just wildly unrelated to the topic. If you're going against an advantage counterplan you should be reading an add on, give the neg a larger scope to solve with their counterplan that (usually) is unrelated to the plan.
I'm chill with judge kick. If no one says anything about it I'll evaluate the neg with whatever they go for in the 2nr, but if it's mentioned in the block I'll also consider the status quo as a solution. Yes, bringing up judge kick in the 2nr is mildly abusive and if aff gives me one reason why its unfair and bad for education I'll probably only take your counterplan into my decision.
My general thoughts on perms are the more condo abuse the more I'm willing to vote on perms. Perms are viable arguments with every single plan! Just don't do a perm and crack down on cp solvency because that's awkward and I've had my fair share of doing that in novice rounds.
Use theory to justify severance perms. If the neg uses 50 state fiat or some other dubious theory phenomena then I'm chill with a severance perm, but no you cannot use a severance perm to remove your links to the net benefit.
k's
stop running identity k's when you're not part of that identity. I personally think it can be disrespectful at times, and identity k's were made for people of that identity. Also a lot of identity k's have slurs or things only people of that identity should be saying, and if you have a slur in your card yes I will dock your points. It's unprofessional and offensive.
My thoughts on perms are pretty synchronous with the cp section so look up. Framework is the most important thing in a k debate. You need to have an interpretation and standards. Don't give me an interpretation but then not say why it matters in debate. If you're aff against a K just remember presumption flips. I am not someone who engages in k debate a lot outside of cap k and fem k so if you're doing like a niche k then you especially need to explain it more with overviews. If you say you understand whats going on in a method v method debate you are a liar. I for one am fine with admitting it so I'll probably just vote whoever explains better.
t
interp, standards, violation. Miss one of those and I'm not voting on t. Aff needs to present a counter interp or say they meet. I'll probably just vote for the interp that is better for fairness and gives both teams a chance to win the round. I don't really have a lot to say about t other than fairness is my highest priority, but I'm chill w whatever impact you have.
theory
please stop running condo on teams with 1 or 2 off. It not only is annoying but it's a waste of time. For me condo is a reject the arg not the team, but if neg is running a substantial amount of conditional off just to waste your time then yeah I could see a reject the team. I'm neutral on neg fiat, and yes 50 state fiat is kinda abusive but if aff does something ridiculous i could allow that.
hot takes
hi, i like science. I consider myself to be tech > truth except one scenario: space col. I think if you genuinely love it and are going for it other than the lols then yeah I'll live but if youre using it just to waste time just don't. I am a proud space col hater and it is genuinely my biggest peeve.
Also if you make any form of brooklyn 99 reference I will raise your speaks I love that show so much
pf
I debated public forum at one tournament and in middle school, so just treat me like a lay judge. I'm not really a fan of impact debates, link turns are awesome. Answering ur opps case with purely impact calc is not really fun to watch, and I'm more inclined to vote for a link centered debate. 1-3 voters, how does that align with the fw? Seriously tell me how I should be evaluating the debate, and I can't stress enough that you NEED offense to win. You can't just block all of your opponents' points but not have any reasons your side wins, that's really unfun to judge. Defense only debates are impossible to judge and I hate evaluating based on whoever gets blocked more.
ld
Treat me like a lay judge. I know there's values and value criterions but besides that I'm no better than the average person. Honestly a lot of stuff from cx applies and I love offense, so I'm probably gonna be evaluating this like a cx round (plan specific).
The most important thing though is that you should be enjoying yourself and having fun. Debate is a learning environment and you should feel respected and treat your partners and opponents with respect. Any form of bigotry is at worse an automatic L and at least a significant dock of speaks. Have fun debating!
Tech>Truth, Tabula Rasa
Second year CX
Email Chain: Dzhao27@pembrokehill.org
Condo good until contradictions or 2 Ks but it's up for debate.
Judge intervention sometimes if the link is just common sense or justified, not going to judge kick unless instructed.
DAs: Don't care what you run but the Link has to be somewhat logical and has too be somewhat specific.
CPs: Multiple condo fine, I like running a bunch of off to test the AFF. Just make them all make sense. Process CPs with some irrelevant Internal Net benefit is boring.
Ks: I don't like Ks, but won't mind voting for them. Reject the plan as the Alt is boring.