Tabroom.com

Peninsula Invitational

2024 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Novice Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alex Borgas Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Mitch Cris De Guzman Granada Hills Charter High School 4 rounds

Jeff Diaz Middle College High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:37 AM PDT

I am the head coach of Speech and Debate (primarily focus on Lincoln-Douglas) at Middle College High School in California, 2023-2024

As a judge I will be focusing on the arguments presented in the debate, meaning: the contents of what is said, and not just how it is stated, will make all the difference. Striking the balance between speaking persuasively, but also having sound logic behind your claims will set you apart from your opponent. I will take a step back and evaluate as a third party: the quality of the argumentation in the debate. The archetypal argument must consist of a claim (what you are trying to advance) and a warrant for that claim (why is it true). I don't need your case. Avoid including me in the chain. Strong evidence should be clearly stated, and not outdated.

Avoid spreading. If I can’t understand you, and you fail to articulate yourself clearly, I can’t judge in favor of your case. Speak clearly and signpost.

I will look to the structure of your cases and be on the lookout for framework (essential in LD). Topicality Frame for 1AC and 1NC: Define any key terms in the resolution that may come up later in the debate or will be crucial to your contentions. Give your Value and its definition. Give your Value Criterion and its definition. Address Significance and Inherency, harms and impacts along with solvency (aff)/clash(neg). Neg: Without clash, there isn’t any debate. Debaters must clash directly and specifically to their opponents’ arguments. CLASH is a central, deciding factor of a debate. If a debater fails to clash with major points, you will lose the debate.

1 AR- I will be looking that you provided answers to the Neg Clash. Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions. 1NR- Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions and NO COUNTER-PLANS. I will not consider new evidence presented in 2NR so please do not give new cards or provide new evidence

Avoid:

Getting confrontational. It’s a debate–it should not get personal. Face the judge, not your opponent.
Getting too loud. Louder does not mean you are more convincing or does not signal you are right.

Speaker points: out of 30 (however the scale starts at 26, unless the student was intentionally rude, made offensive or hateful comments-this will result in a 25). I may assign the winning debater the highest number of speaker points (granted there weren’t major issues and they weren't subpar), unless I believe it is a low-point win.

Results will be on Tabroom. Thank you.

Gil Gandionco Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:02 AM PDT

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

Joseph Kim Granada Hills Charter High School 4 rounds

Mei Kim Sage Oak Charter 2 rounds

Devin Lai Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Kevin Lai Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Samantha Lemus Loyola High School 4 rounds

Shawn Lo Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Colin McCarson Loyola High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 3:33 AM PDT

I am a senior at UCLA. I am a double major in Computer Science and Mathematics. I have limited debate experience, mostly constrained to observation and judging. I also have 6 years of experience as a secondary school and early college tutor, mostly in mathematics and technical writing areas. Furthermore, I have a strong technical and formal writing background in CS, Mathematics, and Philosophy (logic and logic-adjacent fields). I am especially interested in formal logics and their applications.

LD is my favorite event.

Since I'm relatively new to debate, I may not be familiar with all event-specific jargon, or topic literature. I have learned many of these things quickly, but please err on the side of caution or I may not understand a position of yours as well as you would like.

As a judge, my focus is substantive and logical argument over rhetoric. That's not to say that I completely disregard rhetoric in debate, but rather, that I believe debate is an academic endeavor aimed at discovering the truth on some matter. Therefore, I think clear definitions, logical argumentation, and coherence and consistency. Most rhetorical devices should be reserved for aiding a listener in following the development of a well-constructed and logical argument (e.g. analogy, metaphor, etc. where appropriate). In general, I am likely to give preference to well-constructed and logical arguments over ones which rely heavily on rhetoric and non-logical rhetorical devices.

TLDR: I subscribe to the idea that debates should have a basic adherence to first order logic, reasonability, and common sense, and that LD in particular should not be a biased event (favoring either the aff or the neg in an equal-skill round, under a typical debate-interpretation of skill). I completely admit that this paradigm may be considered very interventionist by some less traditional debaters. Recall that debate is intended to be judged by members of the general public, and is not debate for debate's sake. To think otherwise is to deprive the activity of the majority of its purpose.

I try to evaluate LD on the following framework:

Constructions: I flow the verbal constructions, not the documents. I will not look at any documents you send me. Please note this in conjunction with my stance on spreading (below). Constructions are the foundation of the debate. Anything that is a voter was in a construction, or has foundation in it. That does not mean everything in the construction is a voter. But, any position in the construction could be a voter. In particular, presence or foundation in a construction is requisite to being a voter. The immediate consequence of this view is that I do not vote on arguments introduced without foundation in later speeches. This includes evidence that is on a card or a document or other medium, but not in the verbal construction. Furthermore, your opponent does not even need to point out a position introduced later without foundation. I will simply ignore any and all discussion which lacks foundation from the first two speeches in the debate.

Constructions are also the only place where you may establish your framework. Framework positions given in rebuttals, without foundation in a construction, will be ignored.

Cross Examination: I don't flow cross. Cross is for you to prepare your next speech. Q/A in cross does not serve as foundation for a voter in a later speech if it was not brought back up in the speech immediately following your cross. This is particularly relevant for the neg - if your cross vanishes in your 1NR, it vanishes from the debate. Same is true for the aff on the 1AR; however the foundation for arguments in the 2AR should be in the 1AC and the 1NR, regardless of what happens in cross.

Rebuttals: All flowed. You can expect that most (but not necessarily all) voters will be issues extended in a rebuttal speech. This includes not only the 2AR and the 2NR, but also the 1AR. However, I reserve the right to vote on points in a constructive which are not addressed by one side or the other, especially if their magnitude was made out to be large. Furthermore, you can expect it will be rare, but in a close debate (e.g. the rebuttal speeches are complete washes) I may vote on issues which were only in the constructives. You may think of this in the following way: Voters in later speeches will generally have larger magnitude when I decide the round.

Symmetric rebuttals, without further substantiation in the form of evidence or in lieu of logical refutation of your opponent's position, will be considered a wash and not voted on. So you can give a symmetric argument (e.g. aff says housing -> employment and neg says employment -> housing) and I will simply draw the sides on that point, unless one side does more work to say why the other side is wrong.

Furthermore, conditional arguments may become voters if I feel that your attempt at using conditionality is just to avoid a concession. For example, saying "that argument was conditional, so I'm dropping it" in your 2NR, after the aff has rebutted you in the 1AR, is probably not going to fly. Strategic concessions are just that - concessions. It is certain that if such a 'conditional' argument, as described in the example, is addressed in the 2AR that it is going to become a voter (or not a voter, depending on what is being argued) in favor of the aff, regardless of whether an appeal in the 2AR was made to the content of the argument itself or to the theoretical issue of conditionality.

Voters: So far we have that for an issue to be a voter it must have foundation in a constructive (from either side). Additionally, the following may disqualify an issue from being a voter without a squeak from your opponent:

Circular arguments. The following schema is circular: p -> (a1 -> a2 -> ... -> an) -> p ~ p -> p. Why are circular arguments bad? Because they hinge on the truth of the premise which is being assumed. Which I, as a judge, know nothing about. That is, you have not convinced anyone of any truth - so I cannot vote on it. Non-trivial circular arguments may not be discarded if your opponent does not point them out (e.g. arguments where n is large in the above schema). An example of a trickily-constructed circular argument, that would be discarded without mention from the opponent, is the following: "If shelters worked, why would we be debating the right to housing? Therefore, shelters do not work." Veiling circular arguments with rhetorical devices (such as rhetorical questions) will not work.
Otherwise logically invalid arguments, which are trivially invalid (see validity here). Trivial meaning the scheme of the argument is sufficiently simple that I could write its truth table in a few seconds. An example of a trivially invalid schema is the following: a1 -> a2. a1. ergo a3. Another example: a1 -> a2. ~a1. ergo ~a2 (this is the converse, an extremely common example I see). However, complicated invalid arguments may be voted on if your opponent does not point out their invalidity. Note that I do not require that your arguments be sound.
Tautological arguments are not voters (p or ~p, "the car is red or it is not red"), unless your framework explicitly excludes first order logic. Word of warning: if your framework excludes first-order logic, you need to define your logic, or I won't be able to flow any of your points effectively. Generally considered to be dangerous territory.
Deliberately contradictory positions are not voters. Basic adherence to logic means adhering to p or ~p.
Evidence violations. Generally as according to the NSDA handbook. However this is something that usually needs to be explicitly brought to my attention, because I don't read any documents.
Ad homs. Will never be voted on. Ever. No exceptions. e.g. "my opponent is unprepared for this debate".
Framework. I will never vote on framework alone. Framework is a mechanism to establish the magnitude and probability of an impact (e.g. both debaters agree on utilitarianism as a value criterion so the magnitude of their impacts will be judged on whichever helps the greatest amount of people). I will never vote on something like "utilitarianism is better than pragmatism" directly.
Not obviously topical, without justification that it indeed is. For example: You are the aff, the resolution is "Should the United States Government guarantee the right to housing", and your "construction" consists of one fact each about 256 different animals. If you do not clearly establish how these animal facts support the resolution, you are going to lose. In this case, the neg doesn't even have to win - you will just lose, because you have no voters under my paradigm.
I couldn't flow it because you spoke too fast or unclearly. Returns to such an issue in rebuttals will be considered to lack foundation unless your opponent deliberately concedes the foundation. This may be an issue while spreading (above 350 wpm). May be resolved if your opponent understood the point and debates you on it, such that I am able to piece it together. That is, you have the benefit of the doubt here.
In order to understand your points it would take me more time to consider them than there is in the speech, or you use words that are so incredibly uncommon I do not know them (e.g. "supererogatory") and therefore cannot understand what you are saying. This largely falls under the above - I won't be able to flow it. This additionally applies to word-salad. I probably will write a question mark. I have before. Clarity, please.
Platitudes are not voters on their own. Justify. Justify. Justify.

How debates will be decided based on the voters:

I decide based on expected values of (the surviving, subject to the above disqualifications) issues and impacts. That is, probability and magnitude (and sign, could be negative impact). Both of these are subject to framework. So, if you win on framework, and your probability and magnitude under your framework are bigger, you are going to do well. If nobody wins on framework, then I will default to epistemic modesty, where probability of an impact becomes the conditional probability given the likelihood of the framework. The likelihood of a framework is something you should argue for. The probabilities I decide can also be a function of the soundness (strength of links) of an argument itself, if they are independent of the framework.

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

Below this point you can find my wishn't list. This list consists things which will largely impact your speaks, but in severe cases will impact voting.

Extinction. You better have a good case. E.g, probability for the argument "homelessness causes nuclear war" is quite low, so the expected value is going to be near-zero by default.
Theory debates. Unless they are clearly warranted. Especially applies to opening with theory in your 1AC.
Plan affs trying to prove generality from a single instance. This scheme is invalid (there exists x, blah, therefore for all x, blah). You are at risk of losing all possible voters in your case
Too many positions. Hard to flow. Easy to discount. Dilutes magnitude. Substance over quantity, please. Expounding deeply on a few positions is generally better than adopting very many and say very little about each. You have a time limit - use it wisely.
Spreading (>350 wpm). Often lacks clarity. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it.

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

Other notes

Status quo arguments, especially ones that argue for solvency, may open your argument to judgement under the common experience (i.e. my opinion) unless mechanisms for how solvency is achieved are clearly laid out.
I like aff implementation (usually not plan aff). Some of the LD issues seem difficult to argue without at least tacit points about implementation. Plans will also help you solve, and if you solve you are likely to win the round.
Counterplans good. But they should a) only be introduced if the aff has a plan and b) be competitive with the aff plan. Introducing a cp without the aff espousing a plan is introducing an argument without foundation (i.e. you are negating nothing).
I am very open to post-round questions from contestants.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me before the round.

Ian Moore Loyola High School 3 rounds None

Lisa Naudi La Costa Canyon High School 4 rounds None

James Park Geffen Academy of UCLA 4 rounds

Murali Sreedhar ModernBrain 4 rounds

Bill Turner Sr. ILearn Education 2 rounds

William Wei Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 9:53 AM PDT

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

debate at peninsula LD for three years

I don’t think an actual detail paradigm for novice ld is essential, I debate at the national circuit and have familiarity with all the progressive arguments that novice will run. I think the most important thing is remembering line by line argument your opponent made and not drop anything. You should always extend your offense first and weigh it against your opponent's offense (impact calc).

I find in many cases debater just respond to the opponent argument by simply rephrasing what their case and evidence is without any interaction (or card and evidence just completely get forgotten and never mentioned later in the round). Tell me why your evidence is better and how their evidence isn't contextualize to yours and didn't answer it. This is why reading and understanding the position and topic you read can be very helpful.

Finally please be respectful and have fun. I can and will end the round if anything inappropriate/mean/hurtful behavior happens. Debate should be logos and not ethos, I don't decide the winner of the debate by who's a better speaker or sounds smarter in cx. Feel free to ask me any question after the debate even if you think my opinion is wrong, listening to feedback is how you learn greatly.

List of thing I would really like to hear from a novice round:

impact calc on the internal link level
impact calc overall and specially why timeframe, possibility, or magnitude (which ever your going for) is MOST important compared to the other, and don't just talk about your impact compare it with your opponents
case turn da or da turn case
a good organized flow with different position on different sheet (show me at the end of round and I will boost your speaker point)
Give me an order before speech
going for cp correctly
kicking out stuff when you need to and not just going for everything in your last speech
pls just call me judge not my real name pls it feel weird

if you want to see a funny photo look at Aaron Yi paradigm

OLD STUFF:

General

Run any argument you want (except very not familiar with trick)

speed fine, slow down on analytic

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to win

dropped argument only true if explain how it interact with debate

Speech Point

Clarity, good organization, Polite = High speaker point

aggressive and fast don't mean high speaker point

Don't be rude in cx

You not suppose to ask your opponent did you read this or what argument did you answer other then ac/nc... YOUR SUPPOSE TO FLOW

less off with better link and longer card > 8 off

impact clac more then just prewritten block, be comparative, also impact clac the link vs link turn

timeframe important as it means your impact happen before other and turn

tell me what argument they didn't answer or didn't answer well that WHY that important and affect the debate

I love seeing argument about evidence comparison and what the card actually say.

Counterplan

defensive argument to solve aff and avoid da

condo might be drop debater when more then 1, anything else most likely drop argument only

I think perm most important

Kritik/Phil

I default to weighing the case, comparative world

l feel link and alt should be most important part and pls don’t forget fw debate

I think T should be read against K aff, all the other "argument" just too hard to win. Impact should be fairness

I never rlly run it myself, so there is that

Topictality

I feel interps is the most important part, caselist also important

both fairness and education important persuade me

not going to vote for rvi

Theory

in round abuse only, I might judge intervene depend on how stupid it is (ex: snoring theory auto ignore)

I think dislcousre theory is a real theory, personally I always send my 1ac file as soon as paring come out even if it 2 hour beore round. I think clash is never a bad thing.

random stuff for fun

Funny argument that stupid--------------------X real argument

sped everything----------------X----Slow down for tag

just debating-X-------------------trying to talk to judge to make them like you at lay tournament

How To Keep Ducks - Duck Keeping Tips For Beginners

Molly Wyatt Loyola High School 2 rounds None

Aaron Yi Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Peninsula Invitational

2024 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Novice Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges