Quarry Lane Open Scrimmage 2
2024 — Online, CA/US
Policy Saturday Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideQuarry Lane ‘27
2nd year varsity debater
Emails for chain:
Please name the chain with the format: “Tournament name—Round—Aff team XX v Neg team XX.”
Tech>truth. Will adjudicate the debate based on the flow and try to intervene as less as possible unless necessary. Give complete warrants, contextualize and number arguments, compare evidence, and tell me why I should vote for you in the 2nr/2ar.
yippee have fun
quarry lane '26
any pronouns
novices
have fun and be nice :) debate is a chill activity so don't take it too seriously.
name the email chain something like -- GGSA 24 R1 - Quarry Lane AC [Aff] vs Lowell CL [Neg]
don't clip -- read the tag, author, date, and highlighted portions of the card. if you want to move on from a chonky card, end the card by saying "mark the card at [insert last word you read]."
time your speeches, cx, and prep (you can also time the other team if you want).
don't steal prep -- you should not be typing or writing things during downtime (ie. anytime there isn't a speech, cx, or prep happening).
tech > truth. that means if an argument is dropped, i won't evaluate new responses. similarly, i won't allow brand new arguments in the rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar) unless justified. however, if the other team drops an arg, you need to coherently extend it and tell me why it matters.
please read and extend complete arguments -- that means claim + warrant + impact -- or else i really can't evaluate it. that also means you need full da shells (uq, link, il, impact), k shells (link, impact, alt), etc in both the 1nc and extended into the 2nr if you choose to go for it.
PLEASE collapse on the neg. that means go for 1 piece of offense in the 2nr. going for multiple becomes shallow and hard to evaluate, which makes the debate really messy (usually not in your favor).
do impact calc! why should i prefer your impact over the other? causation/turns case args are very helpful.
don't just spam cards and read pre-written blocks -- try to engage with the other side through line-by-line and explain why their arguments are flawed. explanation is far more important, and you should effectively use evidence you've already read. that means you should flow! (ie. write your opponents arguments down by ear, not just by reading off the doc.)
clarity > speed, especially as a novice. signpost -- ie. let me know when you're moving on to another argument.
ignore everything below this section <3
top level
tech > truth; i will judge off the flow and intervene as little as possible. flesh out your arguments in the rebuttals. compare evidence. give judge instruction.
speed is fine. clarity is better. slow down on analytics and tags. something i've been told is to put a decently chunky card at the top of your 2ac blocks to give the judge pen time.
explanation is more important to me than evidence, and i will only go back to read ev if necessary. please try to minimize inserting ev.
smart cx questions are deadly and will be rewarded.
be respectful and have fun :)
theory
voting issues are typically a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
comparative impact calculus and internal link analysis is really important for me. i need to you explain why your interp solves your offense and why that outweighs or turns theirs. topic-specific analysis is pretty helpful as well.
efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely. i'll assume dispo means perms or theory unless you define it otherwise.
don't read hidden aspec/theory.
t
i default to competing interpretations. reasonability is convincing against contrived t violations, but i'm not great at evaluating it. we meet is a yes/no question. caselists are very helpful. do ev comparison.
k
haven't dug very deep into k literature. i'm better for more common k's (cap, security, setcol, identity stuff), but better explanation overcomes most barriers.
i am agnostic on framework, but i'm sympathetic towards 2ar recontextualizations bc 1ars on fw are painful. i am especially sympathetic to 1ar args when the block is sloppy on line-by-line and makes vague cross-apps from the overview.
the link debate is super important -- be specific to the aff and explain why the two worlds are incompatible. "whoever talks about the aff more in a kritik round usually wins."
alt explanation is so crucial too -- what does the alt actually do? if the alt can solve a majority of the aff, that lowers the threshold for the link so much. root cause explanation also helps a ton.
cp
case-specific and advantage counterplans are really fun. i prefer functionally competitive cps with solvency advocates, but do whatever it takes to win.
i'm neutral on cp theory, but if the cp has good solvency advocates, i err neg. smart perms will be rewarded.
give instructions for sufficiency framing and judge kick. i default to no judge kick.
presumption flips aff if you go for a world, but i can be persuaded by "less change" or "neg flex" means presumption is neg warranting.
da
impact calc is great. turns case analysis is super important, but don't overdo it because it becomes irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.
it pains me when teams clearly don't understand the ptx da bill they're reading.
k affs
t-usfg, cap k, and piks make the most sense to me.
i'm fine for either fairness or clash as an impact to t, but choose wisely based on the aff and their strat. smart tvas access and mitigate the aff's offense and helps 2nr analysis so much.
misc
post-round me! i think it's really educational.
don't steal prep. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.
if you find an ethics violation pre-round, please tell your opponents. treating it like an in-round strategy is a terrible model for debate.
adityagandhi2022@gmail.com --- add me to the email chain
Quarry Lane HG
4th year on the circuit --- 2 PF, 2 Policy
I'm a 2A/1N if that matters
I'm DEFINETELY not that much older than you, so please don't call me judge, Adi works fine
I've been coached by these people and their paradigms will probably be way more detailed than I ever dream of --- Chris Thiele, Jared Spiers, TC Perez, and Iris Zhang
"It's 2024: you know how to send an email, it should be sent by start time" --- Jared Spiers
For novices:
--- Please weigh
--- If you're going fast, make sure you're clear
--- Signpost and organize your speech
--- Please DON'T waste time --- the tournament is already time pressed so please don't add to that
--- Don't clip cards
--- Questions like "what did you read" are cross-ex questions
--- Don't be agressive or mean
Angad Hayer
Quarry Lane ‘28
This is my third year in policy debate.
I am a 2N, might explain some things.
General
-
I prefer Offense-Defense in terms of T debates, since I think Reasonability is kinda vague, but if dropped, Reasonability probably can win you the debate.
-
I DO NOT believe in 0% risk, if you are getting absolutely demolished there is probably still a 1% risk of like your DA happening
-
Dropped arguments are true, that means that you probably don’t have to explain it again, unless you are making some sort of cross application to another argument or something.
Shahzeb Khan
QLS '27
Top Level:
5th year debater - I debated pf for 2 years, and I am currently a 3rd year policy debater
I will vote on anything, you do you - tech>truth
If you want to find a list of things I probably agree with go to thiele's paradigm
Being funny is good -- and will be rewarded
+0.1 if before you start your speech you say “I Love You Chris Thiele” and/or you make a Big Lebowski reference during a speech
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.
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.