Tabroom.com

Middle School Policy 1004

2024 — Online, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aadi Bhagat Hire

Xavier Burchfield Hire

Hans Chen Hire

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 9:26 AM PDT

Northwood '28---honestly might change tbh---Pen here we go!!!

Put me on the email chain--hanscpolicydebate@gmail.com

Stealing prep is bad and I will not endorse the practice. I will time prep and cross ex, but i encourage timing (more for novices)

I look to Iva Liu as a role model but I disagree with her ideas of arguments

1---Ks: It is fine, links are to the representations of the aff, if specific, I will be more alarmed about it, explain what the K is please, big word extensions will not help me evaluate the debate.

2---T: should be more of the debates, a lot of affs are not topical, so use it to your advantage

If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.

You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making in the tag or somewhere during your speech.

I'm tech > truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s)."They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone. You need analysis to help me weigh.

I flow what I hear you say. Send out a document with every analytic argument please. I find it hard to flow spreading if you are not clear, so if you don't think you spread good, send those out please.

I care about the quality of your arguments and cards but don't care as much about the content. As a debater, I didn't find long judge philosophies particularly helpful because often what people write in their philosophies doesn't really correspond too much to how they evaluate debates, so I am not going to write down all of my tiny opinions about arguments. The only two maybe caveats are that I will kick the CP for the NEG if no one tells me not to aka. Judgekick, and I will vote against you if you say death is good or racism good (this especially includes suggesting that the death of your opponents would be good).

After the round is over, please send a complied doc of all of the cards you think were relevant in the debate. (Relevant=extended in a final rebuttal). Compiling cards is meant to make it easier/faster for me to render a decision, and is not a 3NR/3AR. Therefore, when you make this document please do not include headers or notes that make arguments (ex: putting a note that says “these cards answer the AFF’s second advantage also” if you read/extended those cards only on advantage 1). I find this to be borderline cheating and makes me more not convinced of the argument.

JUDGE INSTRUCTION AT REBUTTALS---FOR NOVICES

Make me laugh (it is pretty easy tbh) = +0.5 speaks.

Clarity = high speaks but depends on your round though.

If you ask me for a 30 you get a 25 instead.

25 speaks if you hide theory somewhere, be brave about it....but if win it technically, you will get a low point win

Speaks start at 28.5 so good luck!

If you have any questions, ask me before the round.

Joshua Chen TAS

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 8:36 AM PDT

He/Him, email: joshuachen1208@gmail.com

Experience: Currently a HS Policy and PF debater for ADL

For Public Forum:

PF does not require spreading so please go through your speeches with clarity. Signposting is really important and for summary speeches please give a clear overview as to what ur contention is. Lastly, please be respectful during crossfire if not it will piss me off.

For Policy Top:

Be quick on sending emails

I will time but please time yourselves.

Truth is important but I'm persuaded by logic and presentation

Both teams should prioritize internal link explanation over impact explanation.

Weighing your impacts

Don't go too fast on analytics.

I don't flow CX, but I'll comment on it if there's anything I liked or disliked

Fairness has a great impact, but I also like impacts about iterations, research, and clashes. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

If it's dropped it's true but explain why

Don't make the debate boring

Explaining your link chains,

OVERVIEWS ARE A MUST-HAVE

Aff top:

I would appreciate it if you guys take the initiative to start the debate as well as exchange your case and past 2NRs. I don't really like K Affs, 1A Please be clear when transitioning between cards or advantages. Clear overviews of the advantages during the 2A are needed.

Couterplans

Cheat counterplans that simply "reword" the Aff are pretty funny but I won't vote on them.

Disads

Politics DAs are fun ig
Turns case is extremely valuable framing for the neg.
the aff should have offense when answering DAs. It's always helpful to have the option to shake things up in the 1ar.

Ks - I love them

But I dislike lazy link debating.
Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
Alt shouldn't be too complicated
Fiat and perm can be answered with framework.

Please stay respectful and have a good attitude, especially during cx, or else I’ll get pissed

Luca Chill Hire

Amber Deng FPS

Isabella Huang Hire

Jason Huang Hire

Last changed on Mon October 21, 2024 at 8:52 AM PDT

大家好，我是Jason Huang

"'Debate' -William Li" -Justin Ding - Lucas Cao

he/him

I debate for Modernbrain & Tesoro High School in LD. I think I have a good understanding of the topics throughout the year but there's always more to learn!

Email on top: jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com

I wish I debated like Noah Christiansen, knew everything like Scott Wheeler, inspired people like Elmer Yang, as nice asLizzie Su, and chill like Alex Borgas.

TLDR: Spreading is fine, tech>truth, I'll vote on anything that has claim, warrant, and impact

For policy:

Everything below applies. I've never debated policy but I know what each speech is for and will treat it like a long LD round.

Things you might care about

Please call me Jason

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.

Time yourself because sometimes I forget

Defaults: No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, PnP negates, theory is highest layer

If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then L25 for your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you :).

CX is binding, flex prep is fine

Substance is evaluated probabilistically, theory is a yes/no question. No 100% or 0% risk.

Don't steal prep---you can take up to one minute to send the email, after that your speaks.........

Use CX for what it's for please

It'd be great if the chain was set up before the round starts

Top

Debate is about the arguments within the rounds and their interactions, so I will do my best to not intervene.

I also think debate should be a space where both sides gets the most education and best experience out of. So feel free to read arguments that you feel most comfortable defending instead of stealing cases off the wiki or pulling up obscure positions from backfiles that you don't understand. Be yourself instead of tailoring the debate towards me.

That being said, I extremely dislike clash avoidance arguments. Though we always joke about hiding aspec or winning on hidden eval after the 1ac, but let's be real---these arguments are not designed for clash but to be a cheap-shot and an easy route to a ballot. These kinds of debates are not fun to judge because there isn't much "debating" going on. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

Argument Prefs

I don't have an explicit bias toward certain arguments(except the kind listed above), so run whatever you want as long as it's not morally repugnant(racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, et cetera). I have more experience with policy v policy, k v policy debates but clash of civs, k v k, and phil.

If you must:

1-Ks

1.5-Policy

2-K-affs

3-Theory/T/Phil

Strike-trix

Again, the ranking is not saying I hate certain arguments, it's reflective of the quality of the decisions I can make with them.

Counterplans

Counterplan debates are fun, especially when they have specific solvency advocates and germane net-benefits.

I lean condo good on most condo debates(unless dropped) because the number of offs really doesn't matter. The 1NC reading 12 offs would have worse quality positions than one that reads only 3 or 4 because they are also constrained by time, and bad arguments are easy to answer with smart analytics and rehighlightings. A really good condo 2AR would be how the negative read an super abusive combination of positions that made engagement technically impossible.

You tell me why a counterplan is cheaty

I won't kick a counterplan unless you tell me to, it'll be better if you gave me some kind of warrant just so the 2AR doesn't destroy the one-liner.

Disadvantages

"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott

Give me a clear link story and why it turns/outweighs case and you'll be good.

For politics, link controls uniqueness. If there's a new uniqueness card coming out every 2 hours, then I'm 100% convinced that not a single person on the planet knows who's winning.

Kritiks

"Link work not framework, K debating is case debating."---Scott

My favorite type of debate, and the one I spend most time reading and researching.

I love when links and indict every/most part of the affirmative because just like any other position. If your 2NR revolves mostly along the link and implicates it to the aff, then you're in a good spot. The stronger the link, the less burden on the alternative.

I don't like Ks that try to use framework and ROTBs to make the aff irrelevant because the debate is not "you don't do this you lose". The K is a critique of the aff's ideological commitments and the aff should defend those commitments.

Generally, I give K tricks less weight. Things like "fiat is illusory", D-rule, and root cause don't really matter to me. Things I would care about are alt solves case, floating PIK, or K-prior.

DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! I like specific links and link walls in the 1NC that are hyperspecific to the aff, it shows that the neg is doing its job in showing why this aff is specifically bad and not some generic card that is just slapped on.

Pre- and post-fiat is meaningless.

Judge kick is the same for the alternative

Plan affs

"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah

Kritikal Affirmatives

I think K-affs are strategic and fun to judge when they: Explain why the ballot is key and what the aff does. There is functionally no difference between a plan-aff and a K-aff, both have impacts, solvency, inherency, and other stock issues, so explaining it as such would be very helpful and clean. I love listening to your theory and how your revolution would succeed but that's insufficient for why I should vote for you in this debate.

Framework

T debating is also case debating, especially for K-affs because the case itself is a massive DA to the traditional policy debate paradigm and the neg framework. Therefore, I think framework should interact with the case to some extent, if not completely.

Carded TVAs are best.

Phil

Calc indicts are not offense

Please err to overexplaining things because I'm not familiar with many lit other than Util and Kant.

Offense-defense. A clear abuse story is necessary for me to vote on T because most affs aren't EXTREMELY abusive to the point where clash is functionally impossible. If the aff is factual topical, I lean toward resonability.

Please impact out standards even if it's dropped, just like you would for a disadvantage.

Theory

Cross-apply the stuff from the T section.

I hold a very low bar for answering frivolous theory, especially ones that don't have a clear violation and impact. Reasonability should do the job if you give me decent warrant(s).

Speaker Points

Things I think boosts speaks:

-Smart strategic moves

-Non-obnoxious CX and zingers

-Non-offense humor

-Clean, packaged rebuttals

-Making an analytical K link to the aff and winning (auto 30)

Every Marx term/reference is +0.1 speaks(You get two at max if you're running an anti-cap argument)

I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to.

Thoughts:

Debate is factual more than just the W/L and speaks on tabroom. The best memories rarely happened in the round but always at the lunch table or on the plane. I love this space because it's educational, enriches the mind, and taught me to be a better person and thinker overall. So while competing with the person sitting across the room or next to you, you can also be friends and have fun while you're at it.

"Make no enemies."---Elmer

Favorite quotes:

"Theory debate is just D1 whining"---Elmer

"First comes no tie, then comes Bataille."---Scott

"We say perm do both for funsies!"---Noah

"The aff should lose because it's bad."---Lizzie

"Drop the argument is very goated."---Alex

"The answer to neg terrorism is aff counterterrorism."---Pat

Ryan Huang FPS

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 3:36 PM CST

About

Add me to the email chain, or send me fun/debate things: rynhium@gmail.com
Asian Debate League & Taipei Fuhsing - Based in Taiwan (GMT+8) so time differences may apply
Debate Experiences: 4 years of SD/PF (IMF), 3 years of JVCX (Water, NATO, fiscal), doing VCX this year (IP) @ Asian Debate League, judged several Taiwan NSDA qualifiers
He/him. Call me "Ryan," "Judge," or whatever you want.

Top

Tech > Truth: Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will try my best to avoid judge intervention (unless I really have to), and prefer not to judge death/extinction good or personal-experiences-related debates, however, dropped arguments with no warrants/blippy reasonings will not be on my flow
I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc: speeches are for you to communicate to your judges and not merely spreading to such unclarity that I can't understand it - I will say "clear" three times before I stop your speech, and please slow down 80% for online debates
I'm very strict on time. No typing or communicating with partners unless it's CX, speech time, or prep. Technical issues should be resolved pre-round.
CX is always "open," it's never "closed," but there should be a primary speaker for the two CXs to avoid speaker point penalties
Vertical proliferation > Horizontal proliferation(aka quality > quantity)
Automatic voters: Clipping, discriminatory speeches, gaming & doing other things before the round ends, body-shaming, or any sorts of behaviors that undermine the activity
I make my ballots off the question: how will it set precedents for future debates?

Speaks:

30~29.8: Best performances I've seen so far
29.7~29: Top debater in the round
28.9~28: Decent performances
27.9~27: Fair performances
Below 27: Performances that undermine the activity
Speaker points penalties: Shady disclosure, poorly constructed speeches, slangs (more tolerated in higher divisions), interruption, rude gestures
Debate is a chill activity - sense of humors, respects for others, or anything that make it easier for me to judge will be greatly rewarded

Theories/Topicalities:

Substantive wins > Technical Wins: Please don't run utopian fiat, A-Spec, L-Spec, or blippy theory arguments in the 2AR/2NR - almost all theories can be resolved by RANT and are not the models of debate we want to have, there are way better choices in the round
Topicalities: They're good tests of whether the plan is topical or not - Reasonability, we meet, overlimiting, and counter-interps are the best aff answers in my opinion, and if the neg can articulate a clear reason why the aff violated and made the debate impossible then I can vote for both sides
Condo is almost always good, but I can also be convinced otherwise
Develop strong theory arguments early in the constructives - Please don't do 10 sec of condo in 2AC and go full 10 min of condo in the rebuttals just because you're losing on substances
Don't spam cards, explain them: Theories/topicalities should mostly rely on analytics and explaining them to me, but cards or definitions can be helpful
Interpretation/We meet: Give clear definitions on what they violate, what the debate should be like in order to be topical. We meet should always be the #1 strategies for aff, but most teams never explain why PTIAV is the most objective metric.
Links: In-round abuses > Potential abuses: Most theory arguments just rant about how abusive the other team can be, but not pointing out how they're actually abusive in the round, and I will not buy most theory arguments unless there are really in-round abuses that make the debate unfair
Internal Links: If you really are to run a theory, please paint the aff and neg worlds of what future debate models will be like based on their abuses - I struggle on why this will affect future debates when judging most theory arguments
Impacts/Standards: Clash!!! Fairness is an internal link to education. Explain why education is the terminal impacts and how it will affect the activity itself, and please clash against the other teams' theory blocks. Most teams never engage with each other, but merely throw arguments for me to judge.

K affs vs T:

I judge them just like policy affs vs T debates, but except that the K affs will impact turn that topical debates are bad: I'm probably not the best person to judge K affs or Ks, but I'll try my best and I'm willing to vote for both sides
Both teams should persuade me why topical debates are good/bad or why the aff's method/theory of power is right or wrong
Aff: Aff shouldn't just say the rez is racist and sit down - They should provide a method to solve it! I will default to voting neg on presumption unless the aff wins each and all of the following parts: The resolution/theory of power, method/solvency, and impacts, and clash with the neg's answers.
Neg: I believe the plan should be topical, and leans neg most of the time. Neg should defend why a topical model of debates is desirable: Either by demonstrating how debate is a competitive game but the aff gets a strategic advantage of picking the debate and reducing it down to a monologue or about how debating the resolution can encourage debaters to become better advocates for political movements and institutions, and potentially a pre-req to doing the aff. And next they should prove why the aff's method is bad or challenge that their theory of the world is wrong.

CP:

Presumption flips aff: When it comes down to weighing the plan vs the CP, the aff will get default presumption because they had 8 min of 1AC speech time to introduce the specificity of their plans, and I would be inclined to lean on a more detailed plan assuming the aff has put out a harm, solvency, and impacts --> aff should take advantage of CP to ask about the CP's solvency mechanism
Perms are tests of competition, the neg must win mutual exclusivity and prove that the CP alone is the best option compared to the plan or the plan + CP. There's no such things as "overwhelming perms or time skew," they're not advocates. I may tolerate limited intrinsicness or severance against process or cheating CPs.
Net benefit: Second important thing is neg should win CP > Plan, or CP solves plan but avoids net benefit. Many teams fail to articulate why I should consider the CP at all without a clear terminal impact, and if both impacts are equal then presumption flips aff. It would be good to run a CP with a DA as NB or CP itself if it has a strong intrinsic NB.

Amy Jia Hire

Victor Kang ADL

Timothy Liu Hire

Sarah Maeng TAS

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 4:08 PM CST

Add me to the email chain! sarahdebateacc@gmail.com

Background

Taipei American '28 --- Based in Taiwan and will either be early morning or late at night for me.

Prior experience in PF and CX (NATO, fiscal redi, IPR)

2a/1n

------

tldr

Condo is good

defult to judgekicks

affs should be topical

I would prefer not to judge extinction/death good args please

Judge instruction at the top of your speeches esp in 2nr and 2ar.

Tech>truth --- but I will not solely vote on a "they dropped the argument/impact", you must extend a warrant and why that matters for you in this debate.

There should be NO racism, sexism, any "isms" in any of the rounds I judge. Debate should be always be a safe and inclusive community.

Not the best judge for Ks, but I'm fine with the generic ones.

---

For Novice Debaters:

FLOW! I can't stress this enough!!!! I see teams reading turns to a scenario they didn't read/reading impact turns to the wrong advantages, don't be like them.

Don't ask your opponents for a marked doc when they only marked 1 or 2 cards --- you dont need it. Also don't be the person asking for the roadmap right after your opponent stands up/sends out the doc. CHILL please.

I flow based on what I hear and would appreciate you sending out a doc WITH analytics especially since these debates are taking place online and can be tricky to hear whenever people are spreading (unclearly).

Put offense at the top, then defense. Aff, put your advantages first. If your neg, put your offcases first.

Don't steal prep. Make it extremely obvious you're not prepping when the timer isn't running.

Practice timing yourselves, I will be timing but it's good practice to time yourselves for future debates.

------

Speaks

CLARITY>SPEED I should be able to hear almost every single word coming out your mouth. + slow down when reading analytics.

Arguing with your partner will TEAR your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took more prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

The more efficient you are the better your speaks will be. That means sending out the email chain asap, being prepared etc.

------

I'm fine with open CX but don't abuse it. Use CX to your advantage and treat it like a speech. I won't be necessarily flowing CX word by word but I generally will be keeping track of what questions and answers are being thrown --- the more ethosy you sound the better.

That's kind of the general paradigm but if you have anymore questions lmk before or after the debate! Have fun!

James Pan Hire

Anushri Shankar Hire

Sterling Utovac Hire

Last changed on Tue October 15, 2024 at 2:37 PM PDT

firepowerx2@gmail.com

"We have Alex Borgas at Home" Alex Borgas at home:

I debate(d) for Peninsula, I won a few tournaments and broke at TOC. I qualified to CHSSA, somehow.

"I agree with my coach on everything" section - see Gordon Krauss, Rayeed Rahman, or Jared Burke

I’ve probably talked to Dalton Ngo, Aiden Kim and Niranjan Deshpande way too much about this activity.

How do I win? (MOST IMPORTANT)

It's your job to tell me! But - respect is good and so is answering arguments in the order they were made.

If you make a joke about Alex Borgas, Shawn Lo, Dalton Ngo, Aryan Siravuri, Brian Son, Kris Deng, Esther Goldman, William Liu, Abby Merges, Penny Stoller, Leah Fischer, Ethan Yang, Matthew Tamayo, or Edward Min the speaker points may be higher than they otherwise might.

Policy 2024-25 (Edit: 10/15/24)

I've debated this topic at camp and in the season. My existing preference for the K is magnified by the nature of this topic.

Read some cards in the second constructive.

Don't read T unless you can communicate it effectively on an already too complicated topic.

Neg teams should aim for getting to the case in the 2NR; likewise, the 2AR should get to the off-case position the negative has extended. Restating your points - great - but less helpful amidst uncontested points by your opponent.

Tolerance for conditionality is inversely correlated with how good the topic is for the negative in terms of core topic controversies - so that is to say, on this topic go crazy.

1AR cards are acceptable but not preferred. They're too late breaking for my taste, because the NEG gets one frontline speech to them, but they're also nearly always strategic and often necessary.

LD (Edit: 10/15/24)

Certified 'snacks judge'.

My favorite argument is the K, it is what I have spent the most time researching, thinking about, and reading. Decision calculus must always begin at the link level since framework is only a question of how one evaluates the link. People who are willing to vote on framework when the NEG hasn't even tried to win a link will probably always confuse me.

Will evaluate after 1NC; 2AR is "after 1NC"

Beyond that, these are the procedures for the debate.

First, because I am very easily distracted, I will flow the round on paper.

Second, my decision usually begins with the value and value criteria presented - these are essential components of your case.

Thirdly, I find debates easiest to evaluate if both participants provide KVIs (key voting issues) at either the beginning or end of their last speech identifying why they have won and what they expect me to side with them on.

Fourth, in instances where affirmation has presented a traditional case, I will find '4 off then case' strategies rather unappealing. The affirmation forfeits this protection should they introduce this style of argumentation first.

Ian Xia Hire

Hermes Yen ADL

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 1:56 AM EDT

general info

he/him

yes email chain -->yenh26@ma.org.tw

Currently debate for ADL, HS junior

topics debated: saudi arms sale, criminal justice, water, nato, fiscal redistribution, ipr

I live in Taiwan so inverted time zone, pref accordingly

tech>>truth (i will deadass vote on anything, i think the stupider the argument the easier it should be to refute)

time yourself

be good people

case

i think that case is often not leveraged against disads and k enough, the 1ac is the aff's best offense and should be used accordingly. soft left affs and k affs are fine, not the most well versed in k aff lit so don't automatically assume i know what you're talking about

disad

disads shouldhave a link and impact card in the 1nc. the more specific the disad links to the aff the happier i'll be. uq overwhelms the link needs to be a thing that the aff leverages more. my favorite disads are very smart politics disads with a very specific link (eg big tech hates ipr laws that protect small firms and lobby accordingly or something)

fw fw fw

basically the better i understand the alt the more comfortable i'll be voting on the k. more 2nrs need to be the cap k this season, seriously broken. my favorite 2nrs is k turns case, smart root cause/serial policy failure arguments i also like. i feel like the aff needs to go for theory against the k more often, especially ones with cheaty alts. once had a team "normal means" a utopian alt.

imo links and fw is inversely correlated (eg, winning fw means you don't have to win as germane a link, and winning a very strong link means you don't have to win fw as much) but that's my take

condo is good (can be convinced otherwise).

competition debates bore me, but don't let that dissuade you.

cheating process cps are fine

cheating pics are fine

i default to judge kick unless told otherwise

i'll vote on anything but please read a violation that actually applies

t is a voting issue

t usfg is imo the best off against a k aff, and debated evenly a k aff should never win against t usfg.

misc

debate is a game which means fairness is a terminal impact

hot take: fairness outweighs education (can be convinced otherwise)

i skew high speaks cause i don't want to mess up elim seeding

i think the "judge as adjudicator" model is the best, the role of the judge as an educator is not the purpose of the activity. as a result, i'm much more willing to vote on blippy theory arguments than most

steal prep if you think you can get away with it (be smart tho)

cx can be really funny

Braden Yian Hire None

Login to Tabroom

Middle School Policy 1004

2024 — Online, CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges