Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 12
2024 — Online, CA/US
Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideThais (T.C.) Perez
CSSH'22/Wake'26
Coach @ Quarry Lane
Add to chain:
I evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm. I would consider myself pretty flow centric because I often forget things that were said in speeches otherwise, and it helps me determine how offensive/defensive arguments interact with the rest of the flow. I flow straight down, which means doing line-by-line is the best way to ensure everything you are saying gets written down. Cross-examination is a speech that I listen to intently and flow on a separate sheet; if you refer to moments from the cross-ex during speeches I will look back at that flow so take advantage of cross-ex moments to communicate to me, not the other team. I take a while for decisions, but this is mostly because I have a decision already written and spend time playing devil’s advocate to ensure that I made the correct choice. Sometimes, after this, the decision will change, but the vast majority of the time, it will not.
I can be convinced that many, if not most, arguments are true when judging a debate. Even if it is not true that “ASPEC causes extinction,” if technical debating deems that it does, then I am willing to vote for it. If you cannot prove that ASPEC does not cause extinction, you do not deserve to win the debate. That being said, this requires a warrant and an impact. I am unpersuaded by standalone claims without reasons behind them. This does not necessarily mean you need cards to support your claims, but it does mean that you need to justify what you are saying with some form of logic and explanation.
Before debating in college, I thought my ideas about debate would never change. However, I now understand that I am improving along with this activity, and my thoughts about debate will never be static. I believe that it is important to note that most of the ideas that follow are subject to change as I continue to learn from the activity and the rest of the debate community.
Plan affs:
I prefer it when “turns the case” arguments are substantiated with cards, especially if it is a non-impact turns the case argument [link turns the case/internal link turns the case/etc]. I think the politics disad is one of the more educational arguments in debate when written properly, even if it is not “real-world.”
In plan aff vs K debates, I will almost always look at the framework debate first, then the terminal impact debate. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. I find it frustrating and anti-educational when judges unjustifiably say things like “the framework debate was a wash” or “I didn’t know how to evaluate framework, so I weighed the aff and gave the neg links.” Aff teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.
Non-Plan affs:
Negative teams are always burdened with rejoinder, regardless of whether or not the affirmative reads a plan. Saying otherwise is callous and anti-educational. This is one of my views that will not change.
I do not have thoughts on whether or not clash/education/fairness are impacts or internal links. I do not have an impact preference on framework; proving to me that the ballot can solve your offense is the best way to win.
If you are reading a framework interpretation in a K v. K debate, explain why your method is best to solve or turn the other team’s offense.
Try to ensure that you have offensive reasons for why the perm does not shield the link. It will make your life and my life much easier.
Misc:
I find that debaters often attempt to adapt to their judges by reading a strategy that they are not as prepared for and is often not well-executed. In order to debate as best you can, read the arguments that you are most prepared to defend.
Plan/Aff vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the aff, normal means, or how the theory you endorse interacts with the material. If the other team doesn't know what your aff does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.
I will default to competing interpretations on topicality. An offense/defense paradigm means that the affirmative must have an offensive reason why their interpretation is better than the negative’s. If reasonability is introduced, the affirmative must have justifications for why sufficiency [“good is good enough”] is a better metric for these debates and set clear standards for what reasonability looks like under their model.
I will by default judge kick conditional off case positions. I enjoy plan-specific PICs.
Coach - Quarry Lane School, formerly Lawrence Free State
Debated - University of Kansas '25 (Antitrust to Climate), Pittsburg HS in Kansas '21 (Education to CJR)
email: jspiersdebate@gmail.com; jspiers@umich.eduduring camp
I will vote on just about anything - except any discriminatory 'ism' good. This includes - hidden ASPEC, death good, fiat double bind, random dropped VIs, "flow check- vote them down if they don't answer this arg" etc... Debates should be decided technically. Bad arguments can't be beaten just by pointing out that they're bad- you have to explain why. Incomplete arguments CAN be answered by pointing out that they're incomplete. I attempt to avoid reading cards as much as possible - when you send a card doc, I will read the minimum I need to make a decision.
Maximizing your chance of victory requires you to verbalize the ballot you want me to write and do the comparison/explanation that you want me to tell you in the RFD. My least favorite debates to judge are the ones that everyone forgets that someone has to write an RFD at the end- and is very good at micro questions but lacking in putting together a ballot.
Many technical judges have blindspots [some think theory is silly and "if it's competitive, it's legit" is always true, some hate condo bad, some won't vote on the K]. No judge wants to admit they have any of these, but if anything is mine is that I think "bad' args are bad- those that contravene reality, not those that are kinda silly but tricky like wipeout - I may be a little too willing to think "true not new" is justified, although in all but the most extreme circumstances I'll probably begrudgingly vote for the bad argument.