Peninsula Invitational
2025 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePlease refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.
CX Teams: Aff starts the email chain ASAP.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org
high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually running tournaments, as such, i'm not really keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. anymore. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.
--
hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep,
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND MONOTONE READERS.if you're spreading you need to enunciate the tags at least. please ask for clarification on this.
general stuff:
- you as the debater have 1 job: tell me, the judge, how to vote. i value impact calcs, world comparisons, and depth over breadth on all flows. if you're running framework, keep it alive till the end of the debate because i love an easy vote. keep your args and flows organized so that by the 2AR/2NR you have a clear flight path for your future ballot.
- if you're non-black and running black args as gotchas, i'm going to break tabroom giving you extremely low speaks.
- nearly all spreading speeds are fine, but i will always value clarity over reading a bunch of stuff, especially if you're unable to speak clearly, or get quieter as you spread.
- on that, neg teams that read 17 half assed args (CP with no plan text, K with no alt, DA with no impacts etc) are wasting their time, the other team's time, and most importantly, my time. don't do it, you will not get my ballot.
- i dock speaks for being rude to your partner or opponents. the competition is never serious enough to warrant actual malice or bad vibes in or out of a round.
- i'm not a very technical judge. the last thing i want to do at the end of a round is pull evidence and spend 10 minutes going back and forth with myself. to coaches: if you have novice or jv debaters who are on the cusp of transition into a higher division, i'm the judge for them.
Please add both emails to the email chain
Please disclose before round
Do NOT call me "Judge" "Kris" "Mr. Deng" or any other disrespectful terminology. Instead you will call me "His most Righteous Grand High Arbiter of All Glorious Things Just and Fair" every time you have something to say to me.
Top Level [Year-Round]
I've screwed middle schoolers in 29 rounds already, you aren't safe bud. I've sat 0 times---call me the goat.
Voted against theory twice already, try me.
If you hit a Suiiiiii after each speech, it will bolster your ethos and make me more likely to vote for you.
Proud Chinese Nationalist + 0.3 speaker points if the 1AC or 1NC blasts Super Idol in the background as a performance.
Don't get too comfortable, Bud. I strive to make you uncomfortable because it bolsters my own ego and makes me feel superior. I have a fragile self-esteem that is easily hurt and injured. Do NOT take this away from me, its the only reason I'm judging the round.
Same thing for insults against me, I might make monkey noises and start swinging (I cannot control this, its just part of my inner psyche, forgive me if you get knocked out)
Do not read a China bad impact. I might freak out and experience psychic violence.
Do these things for more speaks
- Please blast your horrendous music into my eardrums before round.
- Yell clear during your opponents speech.
- Play clash royale mid speech with max volume on.
- Post round me
Favorite Snacks
If you bring me some, I might increase your speaks. No one's done this yet, that's why I'm 0-23 for correct decisions. You can be the first one that I vote correctly for. (caps after +0.5) (っ˘ڡ˘ς)
- Milkis and calpico (+0.1 for each one you bring me)
- Swedish fish (+0.1 for 20, I only take the red ones)
- Sour Patch Watermelon (+0.1 for 20)
- Chipotle (+ 0.5) [My order is soft shell tacos with Chicken Al Pastor, brown rice, no beans, queso, cheese, corn, hotsauce, no lettuce : (, please pair this with a water cup that you've illlegally filled with a softdrink or lemonade)
Senior Year [24-25]
Tech>Truth
I think that a judge should come into a round with a clean state. We should do our best to prevent against implicit bias. Paradigms are referendums of just that, and we should do our best to check against it, although that still doesn't mean you should go ham.
Similarly, relying on a high school senior to evaluate real-world harm and violence probably isn't the best avenue for a resolution.
I am a pretty unserious person (you should be able to tell by now), and I think that this type of philosophy should also reflect debate broadly. Debate is debate, and we come here to speak fast, learn about things, and, most importantly, to have fun. Everyone has their own reasons to spend time in this activity, and I cringe at people who take themselves too seriously and make the round hostile and tense.
Past 2NRs this year has changed greatly from last year. When people ask me what type of debater I am, I'd probably say that I'm a flex debater, everything that goes in the 1NC is a position that I seriously consider as a possible 2NR, I like debaters that do the same.
-25% Kritikal arguments
-25% T
-20% T-USFG
-15% Process CP
-15% DAs/Impact Turns
Evaluation of arguments has also changed, albeit slightly.
-DAs/Impact Turns 10/10
-Process CPs 10/10
-T [9/10]
-"Policy" Ks 8/10
-FW K's 6/10
-Theory [3-4/10] (Condo, Process CPs Bad)
-Frivolous Theory [1/10] ("Epistemic Fiat is a voting issue")
-Ad-Homs [No]
Camp Philosophy [Summer 2024]
-My 2NR's against policy affirmatives last year have been
- 90% politics, inflation, or an impact turn/DA with an pic, advantage cp, or another CP
-10% process CP or DA/impact turn outweighs debates
Judge Philosophy
---Bad at evaluating FW heavy K's.
---Err neg on T vs. K-Aff debates
---In an order of offense that are favorable if executed correctly (greatest to least) with a rating of my opinion
-DA's + Impact Turns 10/10
- Process CPs 9/10
- Topicality 8/10 (10/10 if its against a K-Aff)
- Heavily Policy Focused K's (6-7/10)
- FW Focused K's (3/10)
- Dumb Procedurals + theory (1/10
- Ad-Hom attacks. (-4/10)
Pen '26
IIT '30
I think China is good.
Everyone has their biases. These are mine:
1. Fairness is always an impact. Debate is only a game.
2. Everything is probabilistic. Zero risk does not exist.
3. Talking about the affirmative is good.
4. Conditionality is always good.
5. Out of round questions are zero.
6. Kritiks should disprove the truth of the affirmative.
7. Affirmatives must read a plan.
I will resolve what I have on my flow and want to make the easiest decision that requires the least amount of thinking.
Peninsula '26
I'm fine for anything. I will try to adjudicate the round fairly unless instructed otherwise.
If you do email chain, maintain your speech times, and extend your offense, I will be happy and give you good speaks.
peninsulalilin@gmail.com
The short version:
1. The Aff gets to weigh the plan, the Neg gets links to representations.
2. No risk is 0 or 100. Everything’s probabilistic except for theory questions.
3. Critical affirmatives — will not evaluate T-USFG responses I heard before this year. Only take me if your framework answers are interesting and innovative (see USC KS). Otherwise, affs must read a plan (more thoughts below).
4. Please make the round entertaining, either through argument innovation or performance.
5. Research and topic knowledge are rewarded with higher speaker points. Isolating a path to victory in your final rebuttals will make you win more, which also holds true if you prove to me you’re not just reading blocks straight down.
6. Case specific strategies are golden. DA case is best. Cards are good but irrelevant unless implicated.
7. Conditionality is good. Process counterplans bad. Word PICs bad.
The long version:
1. Framework Ks are a scourge to debate with all this new generation microaggressions, fiat K nonsense. Same for critical affirmatives that say the same stuff on the Aff. Both are uninteresting debate meta arguments only there to test technical debating abilities. K affs don’t have to be boring — USC KS’s framework answers for example are something I can watch over and over again. Therefore, I will not vote on ‘procedural violence’ in a debate round. If you question whether your grey zone argument is considered as part of that calculus, just strike me or don’t read it.
One additional implication is that I will zero fairness defense at the terminal level, and only evaluate internal link defense if in the context of the counterinterp and/or it’s interesting enough separate from “process cps inev” (the exception is if your whole framework approach is innovative and actually interesting).
2. Framework: plan focus is undesirable. Instead, negatives should get to critique the aff, and compete off of a representation (and the Aff should weigh the case).
Two net benefits.
First, link turn to Aff ground. Neg offense becomes aff offense too. When you K a representation of the aff, they can impact turn it, because the neg has made it broader than the affirmative’s defense of it. For example: Aff = capitalist gives you cap good bad external to the 8 minute 1AC you read.
It’s a bit arbitrary, but not unfair. The neg will not run fringe Ks because they still have to beat the case. Therefore, the more central a representation is to the case, the more the K can turn/solve it, the more strategic it is. The bar should usually be: if, assuming this statement in the 1AC was presumed untrue, could the aff’s internal links and scenario still exist? If yes, there’s no link. Otherwise, you get a critique.
Even if fringe, literature based generally check, you can always say impact/internal links defense, and you get free impact turns to the alt. Either way, it’s no worse than a school breaking a new case neg pulling up a fringe section of the topic you never researched. God knows most debaters don’t research literally everything, so the K in this case is not more unfair because you wouldn’t have predicted the random amicus brief turned DA anyways.
Second, education. Link turns clash — reps debates set the basis for critical literature and some really interesting academic discussions. Not gonna rant too long about this because it’s obvious it should be good, no one would read a book because they’d rather scroll tiktok, etc etc.
Maybe also say neg flex, depending on the topic.
This is NOT philosophical competition. Alts must be USFG. The aff gets perms but cant sever certain 1AC reps. If the alt endorses two ideological stances opposite to 2 1AC reps, you can’t sever one of them but you can impact turn both. Whatever is not implicated by the link but is part of the alt can be permutes. The alt is not a policy proposal (unless explained as such).
3. Try or die shouldn’t make sense, but thats an issue with debate itself. It’s a smart argument that takes advantage of debate rules and shenanigans.
No argument is ever 100. We treat it as such for simplicity sake and to heighten the risk and reward associated with genuine clash, but there needs to be something grounded in the real world. Conceding an impact doesn’t mean we’re all dead, it just means that I should act pretty scared because we’re likely to all die soon.
Uniqueness can’t be 100% because then the link wouldn’t matter and your DA would be zero.
Pretty much, saying analytic impact defense is enough to say no try or die. Or “intervening actors solve.” Or (nothing), because no argument is ever 100 and I won’t treat it that way.
4. Risk is probabilistic minus topicality and theory violations, where it’s yes/no. And maybe some other things in certain situations. The exception is hidden theory — always no.
5. “Fairness in this round” doesn’t make sense if you lose your interp.
Presume a normal topicality debate. The way you get to offense is through internal link debating (limits, ground, etc). Fairness is a terminal impact, true, but when a judge votes a side, they don’t actualize an interp or “remedy unfairness,” they just vote for the better interp.
Similarly, if the aff wins their interp, it would be also unfair to vote against them. The ballot remedies no unfairness in this instance. This is EVEN IF the affirmative doesn’t have a fairness terminal impact — because you voting neg doesn’t solve “debatability” (the neg’s real internal link to fairness). If the aff interp is better, I vote aff.
Fairness “internal links” are not in round. “The aff shifted” is a nonstarter because winning the aff’s interp means there’s no impact to that shiftiness. It’s an example of your debatability internal links in the round, but my ballot doesn’t remedy it, just as it doesn’t remedy you introducing topicality in this debate as “no linking the affirmative’s offense on case.” If you lose your interp, the shiftiness becomes legitimate and not something you can vote the other team down on because it was a “topical” action.
An additional implication of this is that clash arguments are underutilized at least as response to things like the fiat K. Because the entire debate should solely be about interpretations, having a straight turn + external offense puts you in a great position.
6. Wipeout as-is is boring. AI, Animal Suffering — I don’t have theoretical qualms against the argument (unlike Ligotti which probably shouldn’t be read), but to make it entertaining, new scenarios are needed.
7. Process CPs are bad for debate. I think debating on IPR has made me appreciate neg ground a lot more, but it’s also made me certain that we don’t need process cps. There’s always SOME argument you can read, SOME offense that’s not just slop. The exception is one that competes off of a word in the plan text, which punishes bad plan writing. As of writing this paradigm — only gone for process 2 times this year (and maybe career). Debate as a whole can do better.
8. Conditionality is good. So is every other counterplan minus process and word PICs.
9. Cards don’t matter unless you tell me they do. Spin, creative analytics matter much more, especially if they demonstrate good background knowledge about the topic.
10. Will not adjudicate out of round questions.
11. Please make the round entertaining. Well executed, case specific strategies will earn very high speaker points. Creative positions will also make me very happy as a judge.
policy debater for Damien High School, TOC'23, '24,
Please include both on the email chain: [yoshidebate@gmail.com] + [damiendebate47@gmail.com]
Preference: All emails should have “Tournament Name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title. please send the email before the round start, with the obvious exception that you are breaking a new aff.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
TLDR
in an ideal world: I think debate is a game of persuasion and you should be able to present any argument and my only job as the judge is to flow and make a decision based on the technical argumentation. This means if you want wipeout, coercion DA, PoMo K, or manifest-your-inner-WGLF debate, go for it. That being said, not all arguments are created equal. Proper argument development will get my vote on any arguments. (1 sentence aspec is not a complete argument and will not get you the auto win even if dropped).
In reality: Remember that your judge is a human, not a robot. My threshold for No-BS is likely to increase as a tournament progresses given the inevitable exhaustion. If the debate gets messy my intuition is most likely to prefer to punish the worst mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves, i.e. the last rebuttal should always have judge instruction.
My face is expressive during debate but pls ignore it bc its not always what it looks, I might just be surprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa nodding don't always mean I agree.
I have to admit that sometimes judging novice feel like "which team has the better block", which is not a very enjoyable kind of debate for me. Please at least show me you know the argument.
Lets be real here, people, we all try to evade clash. but dont be scared of clash, you need them to win debate.
Top-level
Tech >>> Truth
Condo is good but also the only CP theory I would vote on (longer rant at the very bottom)
dropped arg are tru, but need to be extended
The burden of Proof determines the Presumption
T
50-50 on reasonability vs competing interp
pls quantify ground and limit
T >> Condo
Read a real T on this topic pls -
Do you want a plan in 1AC ?
K args are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debate.I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundamentally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilizations" thing.
I enjoy K aff which is nuanced.
I strongly dislike arguments that call into the humanity/identity of the debater in the round and/or reference to what happened outside of the round, because I am not sure what I as a judge supposed to do with these kinds of arguments. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contextualize them to the debate or convince me it's not just an accusation of sorts.
Who wins the strongest IL to their impact + impact calc wins this kind of debate.
Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.
CP
perm is just a test of competition
CP competition is based on mandates
Competition is not Topicality (e.g. T-should)
need instruction if you want me to judge kick
I will not vote on no-solvency-advocate theory as a voter, but willing to raise the threshold of solvency
DA
Zero risk exists, rarely happens
UQ determines the direction of the link
I like turns case analysis
Ev quality is very important - I am done with teams cutting "it passed the committee " as a ptx UQ
Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!
K (on the neg)
love them, specificity and good clash will get me to vote on any kind of K, but inversely, I loathe block-botting and generic K strategy.
Ks I have went for my debate career: Cap, set col, security, psycho, Lee Edelman, antiblackness.
1AC rehighlights is good
Phil comp is bad (but will vote for it)
if you read 7+ OFF just to explode 13 minutes of K you are a coward, but who cares if you end up winning
Minor Pet Peeves
ask for marked doc when it's like just a few cards skipped/cut
"they drop it" with no explanation"
"they drop it" when they did not
"if you do not like it go do LD/PF "
"we will answer that if you make the argument", pls my brother in Christ just answer the damn question.
long ov that could have just been line by line,
marking multiple cards in the same speech
theory prolif in the 2AC
send out 7+ OFF and can't finish them so you skip
DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Steal preps
Clipping
Insult your opponent
be anti-disclosure
Condo Rant
For all you 2As out there, I feel ya, it is terrifying when there are 13 OFF 1NC and 5 of them made it to the block. Hence I am not gonna outright worship infinite condo like a good 2N should. But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo in front of me. You need to have a good interpretation that can solve for time skew, and I hardly see myself voting on that time skew is a uq impact of condo. Instead, if the 1AR is gonna carry the cross of condo, it needs to talk about research, depth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR needs to start the full condo debate, I will not give new 2AR spin on standards. Moreover, you need to connect all of standards to your Counter-interpretation, why does that solve? The neg always wins condo when they are like "Yeah, condo def sucks for the aff, but any other alternative only kills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitable" and the 2ar just keeps extending horror stories of condo without telling me why is dispo/limited-condo/their CI/ a good alternative that solve the unforgivable sins of condo.
Peninsula '25
If I am adjudicating your debate, may god save you.
I am a stupider, less disciplined, less reliable version of Mike Li. During my brief stint as a mediocre debater, I cut approximately 3 cards per year and none of them were readable. My partner is responsible for upwards of 99% of the success that I had throughout all 7 years of my debate career and wrote all of my speeches. I am approximately equivalent to Gautam Chamarthy.
Peninsula '27
Add me to the email at peninsulaLL27@gmail.com
——————————————————————————————————
Short and Misc
Do NOT call me "Judge" "Adjudicator" "Grant" "Mr. Liu" or any other disrespectful terminology. Instead you will call me "His most Righteous Grand High Arbiter of All Glorious Things Just and Fair" every time you have something to say to me.
Tech > Truth, however what I perceive as true arguments are easier to win
if you say use the phrase "nothing burger" I will give you +0.1 speaks
Novices
I know debate can be hard, just have fun and do your best! I'll try to evaluate as fairly as I can with the least judge intervention.
Clarity >> Speed
Please flow!!!!
Do impact calculus, tell me why you should win. Especially in the final rebuttals, try to write my RFD for me
Debate to me like I don't know anything.
Yashi (She/her)
Parent judge
Please add me to the email chain: luyashi@gmail.com
Clarity>speed
I won't be timing the speeches
Be kind, respectful, enjoy, and have fun!
Peninsula PY
Add me:
jamespan6429@gmail.com
Qualifications
School record for most single-season bid rounds lost.
2024 La Costa Canyon Winter Invitational Semifinalist.
2024 The Meadows Invitational 7th speaker.
Philosophy
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 subsituting their personal biases for the arguments presented. Therefore, I will seek to emulate the perfect judge I always sought as a debater: purely technical. I will not insert my own thoughts based on reputation, presentation, or external influences.
My biggest influences include Aiden Kwon, Coralynn Yang, Devin Lai, Braden Yian, Darwin Boss, Samar Mohan, Imran Kutianawala, Nikhil Gupta, Raghav Laxminarasimhan, and Jack Liu.
Argument Specific
I share similar views on most issues as other Peninsula debaters e.g. read a plan, write case negs, etc. I'll use this section to outline pertinent points of disagreement:
My partner and I have gone for 'Process' CPs a litany of times. I am most persuaded by a function-only model, but I do find merit in function and text. For the negative, I favor arguments such as arbitrariness and word games. On the affirmative, I favor aff ground. Objectivity is hard to win.
Plan in a vacuum is the model for topicality I am most convinced by, and most seriously misunderstand what it means. Similarly, positional or philosophical competition make little sense to me.
The majority of debaters at my school believe that ‘middle-ground’ framework interpretations are more strategic than extremist framework interpretations, such as plan-focus or no-plan. My belief deviates from this norm. Middle-ground interpretations give you a drastically smaller and poorer set of offense, with an only marginally better set of defense. Considering the argumentative 'meta' is centered around links to fiat or predictability-based internal links to fairness and/or clash, I am not sure what strategic benefit middle-ground interpretation garners for either side.
Besides, I find it difficult to understand the strategic utility of a critique external to framework. If the link is generic, it loses to the perm: double bind. If the link is specific, it's probably better expressed via a well-executed case turn e.g. hegemony bad.
I am better for arguments such as the intrinsicness test than most judges. I also find most answers that negative teams leverage against it are thoroughly unresponsive.
Zero and one hundred percent risk are both achievable given technical concessions. "Uniqueness can't be 100% because it would overwhelm the link" is nonresponsive, given that the implication of said concession only makes sense in the context of the conceded claim. For example, conceding uniqueness against Politics does not mean the bill certainly passes, only that you are certain that it will likely pass.
Miscellaneous
I do want a card doc. I will reward speaks for timeliness and organization. A card doc is a means to evaluate important arguments without having to sift through the speech docs. A card doc is not a 3NR/3AR. If you treat it as such, expect not to be satisfied with your speaker points.
If you take cross as prep, the other team gets to read cards.
If you are writing a perm text, please include the whole plan.
I can only see blue or gray highlighting. I will be unable to evaluate the content of your card otherwise.
I like docs to be labeled like this: 'Speech Name---Round---Tournament'.
Example: '[S] 2NC---Round 1---UNLV'
I like blocks formatted like this: 'Argument Name---AT: Argument Name---Speech Name'
Example: 'Buddhism K---FW---Fairness---2NC'
I like cards formatted like this:
Tag.
Author Last Name 'Year [Author First Name; Specific Date; Qualifications; Source, "Title," Volume, Chapter, Article Number, or URL]
Example:
The government is exploiting vague statutes regarding secrecy orders to overreach into patent law, stifling public disclosure and innovation.
Saltz ’22 [Gregory; February 16; J.D. in Intellectual Property from Texas A&M University; Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, “Patently Absurd: The Invention Secrecy Order System,” vol. 8]
I'll reward speaks for well-formatted docs and cards.
If you don't use Word, please send out your speech as a Google Doc.
I’m mostly tabula rasa - but with a massive preference for clear, substantive arguments. Pure speed, especially if it feels like it’s in service of a kitchen-sink strategy that’s just hoping to induce drops, is not my idea of a good time. (This is partly because of subjective preference for framing, collapsing, and winning the key issues, but it’s also an admission that I don’t flow as fast or as crisply as I used to.)
For background, I did both cx and ld in high school, including cx kritiks way back in the 1990s. I also did parli in college. That said, it’s been a while…
I hope this helps. Good luck.
Last update: 10/13/24
My email isjstern23@cmc.edu.
I'm the head coach at North Hollywood High School. Last year I was the head coach at Polytechnic. I did LD in high school and had 4 bids over 2 years, but a lot of my views have changed since then. I really like actual debating, regardless of what you read. Go for death good, high theory, straight policy, condo, whatever - you do you. Good debate is good debate. I give speaks based on strategy and I like it when debaters think critically instead of reading from a script. And unique args are cool- it gets boring judging the same debate a million times. I'll put some more specific stuff below.
I am a big fan of explanations. This is true in general: you should be able to explain your args without needing a ton of jargon. But I find that this is most commonly an issue in K debates, especially in cross ex. You should be able to clearly explain your links, what the importance of the ballot is, how your framing functions, and (especially) what the alt does. K tricks can work, but be transparent about them in CX. If your opponent asks you if the alt can solve the Aff and you don't give them a straight answer, I won't vote on a floating PIK.
Meta-weighing is super under-utilized. Often rounds turn into races to extinction, but there's no reason this has to be the case. If you weigh well, you can win that highly probable structural violence outweighs some far out extinction impact. Or that a high probability long term extinction risk outweighs a low probability short term one. Should I prioritize a 90% chance of extinction from climate change in 100 years, a 10% chance of extinction from a US-China war in 5 years, or 100% chance of a continued cycle of oppression? You tell me.
For K's, it's often unclear if impacts are supposed to be relative to the particular round, relative to the debate community as a whole, or relative to all of society, so this should be explained. I'm sympathetic to T and I think that fairness and clash are impacts. I also like debate and think it's educational. Call me an optimist. Cross ex is important to pin down non-T affs. But I don't dislike non-T affs when they're run well - again, you do you.
Against pess, I'm extremely sympathetic to "progress is possible." I also think you can weigh on scope against pess- even if the government is unable to help a certain group of people, if you're winning an extinction impact, that's bad for everyone, which is probably worse. I also think that perm double bind is pretty effective against pess. If it's true that things can't get worse, then it seems like the Aff doesn't make anything worse, so the links aren't disadvantages to the perm.
Theory against CP's is usually a good idea and I'm definitely willing to vote on condo or process CP's bad. But I also enjoy creative process CP's and advantage CP's. I don't have a strong leaning on most shells. The shell that I most heavily lean Aff on is 50 states fiat bad. It's not because I think that 50 states is particularly unfair (though it probably is), but I think it's utopian fiat and thus bad policymaking education: in the real world, the 50 states have never passed a policy in conjunction. I'd much rather you read a delay CP to go with Politics or Elections. Real world policymakers delay legislation to deal with PC concerns, they don't pass it onto the states.
Finally, I don't want to vote on any procedurals that involve characterizing an opponent as offensive in any way unless they actually are. If you do go for a procedural like this, I will use my discretion to determine whether to vote on it or not, even if you win it.
Updates 2/3/24: Prep time ends when you hit send. Teams seem way to afraid to pull the trigger on theory arguments; if you put it in your speech, you should be prepared to go for it. And I think I've been a little bit of a point fairy, I probably won't go over 29.5 as much anymore. Finally, I like creative args- if you pull out a disad or something that I haven't seen before this year, I will boost your speaks.
Updates 1/18/25: If I'm judging LD, I like phil :). Also, I'm Jewish. I'm not trying to change anyone's views about Israel, and views in debate exist to be challenged- just be careful because we might not be aligned here.
Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)
Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round 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). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.
Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.
Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.
Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).
Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.
Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.
Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.
Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.
Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.
Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.
Peninsula '26, Policy, He/Him
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Philosophy:
Tech > Truth. However, truth heavily influences the strength of your arguments.
Everything below is ultimately outweighed by superior technical debating (absent violence).
I will only flow the debater during their speech. Interjections from the other debater will not be evaluated.
Won't vote on things out of round. Disclosure is good but an in-round, technical debate to be had.
If you perceive violence has occurred in round, tell me to stop the round and I will. I will attempt to follow tournament rules to my best ability.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
General Preferences:
I prefer in-depth, case-specific strategies that are explained robustly and substantiated by quality evidence. Teams that rely on the limits of aff conditionality as a win condition will be rewarded with lower speaker points.
Be clear. I want to understand every word you say. I will clear you twice before I begin deducting speaker points.
When an argument is dropped, the warrants are dropped. But the implications of the argument/evidence may still be contested.
Utilize judge instruction. Point to pivotal offense and where I should start my decision. Flesh out why your offense is true and how it implicates my decision.
Make cross-examination fun. Don't just make it about assertions of your own arguments. Open cross-examination is fine.
Keep track of your own time. For some reason, debaters really enjoy not writing down their own prep time.
Respect your opponents and have fun. Debates are fun for ME when YOU are actually enjoying them. Being a jerk hurts everyone.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Affirmatives:
Dropped 1AC impacts do not require a re-explanation of solvency in the 2AC (obviously an exception if they contest solvency). However, even a small extension of said impact is required for it to be evaluated by the end of the debate.
Pretty basic in every other regard. I ran "big stick" affirmatives for most of my career, delved into some "soft-left" 1ACs (end orphan suffering).
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Critical Affirmatives:
Critical affirmatives that make logical, strategic arguments to explain why they access the core controversies of the topic are more persuasive than non-germane critiques of fiat. I personally believe arguments on topicality favor the negative. However, I maximize technical evaluation as a neutral arbiter, so hold no predisposition against critical affirmatives.
Successful affirmative teams must either win their counter-interpretation is better for the negative's impacts or have a substantial impact turn to negative standards.
Generally better for fairness than clash/skills.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Topicality:
I evaluate topicality through an offense/defense frame. That means a lack of impact calculus will often be devastating for the negative.
Winning reasonability is not an instant affirmative ballot. Explain to me why the affirmative substantially avoids negative impacts.
When answering "plan text in a vacuum," present an alternative metric of evaluation, whether that be tags, solvency advocates, or cross-ex.
We meet is one of, if not the only, "yes/no" questions in debate; I'll evaluate it as such.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Disadvantages:
As of 2025, my favorite argument to go for!
Have a warranted extension for why the DA's impact outweighs case. That means don't just say "we outweigh on timeframe." Explain to me why timeframe matters. Explain the implications of any turns case arguments.
For Agenda DAs, cutting uniqueness/disadvantages usually reflect a better understanding of your evidence. A clear, robust explanation of current political climates and why the affirmative removes the resources necessary to pass it is one of the most persuasive arguments in debate.
Theoretical reasons against Politics DAs are brain slop that makes no sense. I have no reason to assume that the plan gets passed instantly, especially without a debate discussing it beforehand.
Case Turns are also incredibly enjoyable to judge. Good warranting of evidence is usually the way to go. If you can do that, you're usually already ahead of the affirmative. Obviously, this excludes "racism good" arguments or anything in the similar vein.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Counterplans:
There's no universal model for competition. However, I generally believe functional AND textually competitive counterplans are both an easier model to defend and foster more enjoyable debates. Textual competition alone is difficult to defend, I'm curious to watch a robust debate defending it though.
That being said, explaining how you functionally compete is exponentially more enjoyable than anything above.
I don't enjoy non-germane process CPs despite personal experience going for them. They encourage block-recycling and are overall abysmally boring to judge. Therefore, I'm more willing to evaluate theory, though believe it a reason to reject the argument and not the team.
If no theoretical opposition is presented, I default judge kick. I believe it is a logical extension of conditionality.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Negative Critiques:
K's must have a link to the plan and disprove the affirmative's assumed truth. Teams that depend on framework/critiques of fiat to moot the 1AC create uninteresting debates that I wish I didn't have to evaluate. Don't pref me if you plan on doing this.
Roles of the judge/ballot are often self-serving, but supplemented with robust extension or absent proper refutation, it's a useful way to create a starting point from whence I evaluate the debate. Be explicit about it, just as any other piece of judge instruction.
I understand common literature (Capitalism or Security) but may struggle when delving deeper into topics like critical race theory, identity literature, and other areas like Baudrillard/Kant.
Actually explain what the alternative says. Clever methods properly supported by evidence are best; otherwise---
"Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious." - Kevin Hirn
K vs K debates are immensely under-explored topics for me; don't assume I understand anything without robust explanations. However, I will do my best to technically evaluate every argument.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Theory:
Conditionality is truthfully the only true reason to reject the team, can be technically persuaded otherwise.
Don't make ethics violations an in-round voting issue. If it is egregious enough to stop the round, tell me to do so. Your appeal to Tabroom will be your decision. Pre-round issues that can be resolved by e-mailing the team are unpersuasive in front of me.
Generally err neg on conditionality. However, limits testing results in lower speaks and is usually less strategic.
Usually err neg on any other theoretical arguments except for the idea that theory debates are bad. Simply rejecting an argument because "non-resolutional theory" is bad makes absolutely no sense.
An extension of hidden 1NC procedurals will instantly cap teams' speaks at a 27.5; Inversely, I am more lenient in awarding higher speaks to the losing affirmative team.
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Speaker Points:
Be fun and demonstrate your strategy in cross-examination. It's the best time for me to evaluate your individual speaking/effectiveness.
Send out the document as quickly as possible. Minimal time-wasting results in higher speaks.
For an extra 0.1 speaker points, roast any of the following debaters:
Aadi Bhagat, Xavier Burchfield, Camron Farjami, Timothy Liu, Mason Kim, and/or Jonathan Yang. An extra 0.2 speaks if you can do all of them.
Tech —>Truth
Better w/ policy evaluation
Have fun, be respectful
Peninsula ’26
Add me to the email chain:
Some recommendations for novice debaters:
1. Do line by line and flow! Answer the arguments your opponents are making and make sure to extend your arguments, especially if they are dropped.
2. Do impact calculus! Give me a clear explanation of the impact you are going for and why it might be more important than the impact they are going for.
3. Don't be afraid to overexplain! Final rebuttals can get really messy, but if you create a clear story that is understandable and is in context of whatever they have said, you will minimize my need to intervene and write the story for you.
4. Sound confident and know your argument (or at least sound like you do).
Please be nice to your opponents and your partner. Debate can be stressful and competitive, but at the end of the day it's a game that is meant to be fun. Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Remember to ask questions! We are all learning, but the best way to build on debates is to get feedback and do it better next time.
Don't be nervous! You got this. Do your best and don't forget to smile :).
QLS 24 (2A|2N)
USC 28 (2A)
Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org
International student from China (If you read China bad. I still vote for u if u win, but I will post round u afterward). Debated 2 years core policy (Water, Fiscal Redistribution) and 1 year K (NATO) in high school. In college is mostly K with some policy in between. Overall, I think am a mediocre debater, but probably better as judge cuz I feel sucks if I am not flowing and we all waste another 2 hrs of our life here
I learned most things I know about debate from Chris Thiele - he has some unconventional philosophy regard debate and definitely affect me a little bit
24-25 Updates: I am not quite familiar with this year's high school topic, but I think I marginally learned more through more debates I judged this year. That being said plz explain the case clearly if u want to go on a case debate : ) Everything else is fine with me
Top Level (TLDR):
- Tech > Truth
- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad
- Yes Speech Doc. All doc should be Word Verbatimized. PDF caps speaks at 28 or below.
- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep
-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.
- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."
- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction
- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.
- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)
1. No stock issue.
2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.
3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA in the block with just one sentence with no link chain or impact calc at all
For policy specific:
Topicality
- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.
- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually
- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.
Theory
- Go for Hidden Aspec = "L ". The best offense for me for 1AR new response justification should be the model of debate that spreads random one line theory argument everywhere in the 1NC is freaking bad.
- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.
- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.
- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.
Framework
- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)
- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)
- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness could be an impact and I belive burnout is real. However, history already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)
-My English sucks - if u phrase your DA/standard with fancy words explain that pls. If I can't flow it, you don't get it.
Case
- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.
- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.
DA
- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!
- Follow basic offense + defense pattern
- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.
CP
- 24/25 Update: TBH no one figure out this year hs topic really well. It seems like a pattern everyone is running process. Therefore, even though I hate process, my ballot rate on it this year is still 50/50. Competition c/a T and Theory
- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)
- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)
Ks
- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.
- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.
- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop. Instead, I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.
- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.
KAffs
- I debated K aff throughout my junior year (Quantum Mechanics) and first semester in college (ESL K), so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.
- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick
LD:
- Trojan Invitation Update: Never judged LD this year. Know zero about the topic, but everything else is fine
- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.
Be respectful
Have fun!