Claire Ain (she/her) (2a/1n)

I debate policy at Blue Valley North - currently a senior

add me to the email chain: claireelizabethain@gmail.com -- speech drop is fine too

Don't be rude/disrespectful, it will probably result in a loss of round/loss of speaker points (that includes all of the isms)

Be mindful of your volume (Hospitalizing migraines make me very sensitive to noise -- just don't scream at me please <3)

It's more important to me that you know what you are doing in a round (sending speech docs on an email chain, starting timers, knowing speech orders) than unnecessarily degrading the other team for making one mistake or trying to read stuff that you do not understand. This includes reading blocks that you can't understand/stole from a random file in your Dropbox.

I'm generally super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or cannot understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding or smiling, most likely you're doing a good thing. Basically, get good at reading your judges and opponents -- makes you more efficient and my job as a judge easier. If the other team is picking their nose and not moving their pens when you are responding to an arg, don't spend time on it. They aren't listening and it probably won't make it into the rebuttal.

Just because I know the topic well does not mean you don't have to explain your arguments. You should be debating off your flow through the debate. I want to see judge instruction in 2nr/ar. I will vote on anything as long as it's argued and explained well with a claim, warrants, and an impact.

Overall debate how you feel most comfortable debating. Don't be too serious, novice year is for learning.

If you have specific questions about arguments you want to run, feel free to ask. I consider myself more policy-leaning on most arguments, but on the NATO topic went for the K in many of my rounds. I most likely understand your lit, but that does not mean you don't have to explain, or even err on the side of overexplaining.

He/Him

3rd year debater at Blue Valley SouthWest

Add me to the email chain: Aidencanon5@gmail.com

--

Novice Debate

--

Top-level

I'm pretty tech over truth, if you explain an argument well, I will give it a lot more weight than a bunch of underdeveloped arguments. I've ran everything from politics to k-affs so just run what you are comfortable with.

I will only evaluate arguments that you extend into the 2nd rebuttal, If you don't extend the parts of the ADV, DA, CP, K, T, or whatever argument you are running, I will have a very hard time voting for it.

Please read a plan text with your 1ACs and CPs (unless it is a K aff then you're fine ig) otherwise I won't evaluate any solvency for your impacts

Please don't read half your 1AC in the 1AC and then read the rest of it in the 2AC, I really don't want to evaluate it, especially because it just feels like you're trying to avoid clashing with the other team.

In a policy round, I will always vote for the team that presents the best potential world, tell my why the aff or neg world is better or worse than the squo and I will have a very easy time voting for you.

I am a policymaker judge, voting based on what you tell me or obvious oversights. I am not averted by a handshake, kritiks are ok, permutations are ok. I appreciate unique strategy and analytical arguments, and one might persuade me with good questions or answers in the cross-examinations. I can understand most general vocabulary and commonly used acronyms in debate, such as DA, FG or AT, having taken two debate classes. I will expect you to know what things mean in your files and apply them correctly, and that will be noted in the speaker ranks. I see the environment as important, but that alone will not sway me. I love topicality and impact calc battles, winning one plays a big part in my vote. Framework = fun, the best pathos arguments, for me, will be there. Please be clean, interpret that as you like. Show friendliness and cooperation with your partner. You won't necessarily lose speaker points for being 'mean', just make sure it stays within the bounds of basic courtesy, respect, and debate guidelines. Otherwise it will.

My shortcomings and partiality to keep in mind:

I have never taken an economics or politics class other than advanced social studies and history. I am a slow writer, so I would appreciate it if you spoke clearly and didn't read important points too fast: read background quickly, read points slowly. I will probably not flow something if it seems immediately unimportant to the debate. Most of my close decisions have been because of fruitless 'evidence competitions', so if you find that there is evidence contradicting the other side's, do something other than adding more evidence please. For example, cite credibility or date or context as reasoning to prefer your cards. I also dislike when a group of people or political party is attacked without context, because I believe that kind of debate is illogical and that these groups vary a lot. If you do that, at least imply that it's not because of the individuals. For negative teams, make sure you have at least some preparation for each affirmative case, even if it's generic. Lack of preparation is conducive to undercooked arguments.

If you believe that the notes I wrote in a ballot were insufficient, it's probably because I feared being late to the next round, and you can try contacting me to get some more reasoning later. I often use the back of the ballot as a flow sheet or attach a flow sheet, so you can see my thought process throughout the debate.

I am a 4 year debater at Blue Valley High School.

JALiekhus@bluevalleyk12.net, keep me on the email chain (I like speechdrop too, just keep me in the evidence share.)

Most Important Notes

-Run what you're comfortable and confident running, good debates will always be best.

-I'm willing to listen to just about everything (no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)

-I will evaluate the arguments how you tell me to, do the work on the flow.

-If you're new to debate, don't let my paradigm scare you. Ask questions when you need to, run what you're comfortable with, and have fun most importantly!

OFF Case

I have experience running all off-case positions, run what you want and think you can win.

DAs: Explain the link story and why voting for the aff is bad, links are very important.

CPs: Explain how the counterplan solves and what the net benefit is, competition is very important.

T: I like topicality, make sure it actually makes sense and has a reason to be run in round, reasonability can be a valid interpretation.

Ks: Run them, I'm willing to listen. Do a bit more explaining than you think you may need, I don't know all the nuance about specific methodologies and you should explain and convince me why you're right. The alt should solve for the impacts of the K, rejection is a way to do that.

ON Case

Defend the case, and make it work for you. Run your case how you know how to.

-Advantage stories are very important, explain to me what your plan does in more depth than "it solves".

-Your case is constructed to work together as one unit, certain parts need other parts to function. That doesn't mean that's always true, you know your case better than I do, but make sure you access certain parts of case if you go for them.

-Clash is amazing, always always always clash and engage with your opponent. If you don't have to drop an advantage, don't.

Closing Notes

Just run whatever you want and have fun really, that's why we're all spending our Saturdays at a school.

Don't let my paradigm convince you to run or not to run something, these are just my thoughts on how I'll be evaluating the round.

Debate is a game, have fun and be kind. You can make good arguments without being rude.

Thanks for letting me judge, it'll be a blast!

Hey there,

My name is Nikos and I'm a 2-year debater at Blue Valley North high school.

Add me to the email chain: nikosdebate@gmail.com

Do your best, and most of all, have fun!

glhf!

email- bvndebatent@gmail.com

Hello! I am a second year debater.

Always sign post (they say __, we say __) and do analysis (this card says __). Don't just read evidence at me, persuade me.

DAs, CPs, theory, and T are all awesome. I love a good K or inherency debate.

I tend to swing a little more to rank on the better speaking than the better arguments but exceptions can be made. I am also not opposed to low speak wins.

Good teamwork and communication with your partner is important. Laughing or making fun of others while they're speaking is cringe and will get you the 4.

bvnw 24'

bvsw '24

he/him

add me to the email chain --- raghupenu10@gmail.com

Elle Razi

email: elrazi@bluevalleyk12.net

Background: fourth-year, open, and varsity debater

Speed: I am totally fine with you speaking fast, however, annunciation is extremely important and I need to be able to understand you. Speaking fast can be difficult, so it is up to the debater and their skill level, but it doesn't make you any better or worse. As long as I can understand your tags and cards, I am fine with any speed

affirmative: When reading an affirmative be sure to understand your own arguments and be prepared to be asked multiple questions regarding your case. Be sure to respond to all negative arguments, it is hard to vote on arguments that were completely dropped or not correctly shut down.

Cross-examinations: Cross-ex is my favorite part of policy debate, I appreciate it when teams utilize the time to give their partners preparation. It is important to use cross-examination wisely and hook the other team on clarification and impact.

Negative: When responding to arguments, try to use off-case arguments to your advantage so you can compare them to the affirmative plan in depth, and back it up with a reason. Even though you will be reading off-case arguments, don't drop the affirmative case answers.

Rebuttals: Giving your rebuttal is extremely important, especially when you are wrapping up the debate, speak clearly, and use line-by-line to prove why you should be voting for your side in the debate round.

bvw 24

aryashah0916@gmail.com

BVSW '24

Michigan '28

rishishetty@gmail.com

TL;DR

Tech > Truth in all instances. Debaters work hard for tournaments and it seems disingenuous for judges to deprive them of that with their personal biases. I've been on both sides of most debate arguments from race Ks to spark, so don't try and over-adapt to what you might think I want to hear, and just go for what you do best. The below are personal biases that I hold, but all are easily overcome by technical debating.

Topicality vs K Affs

When evenly debated, I think that the negative should win these debates every single time. I've gone for both clash and fairness against k affs, and I think that while fairness is more true as an impact, both have their own uses. Fairness is most strategic when going for ballot proximity arguments/making the debate solely about what happened in one debate, while clash really only makes sense in the context of models. With that said, I read a K aff for all my junior year and some of my senior year and have spent substantial amounts of my free time thinking of arguments for both sides of these debates, so I'm by no means a "framework hack".

I think that the best way to go about answering topicality is impact turning the presentation of it i.e a K of why the neg suggesting that "competition overcodes decision-making" is racialized or why imposing legal definitions is psychically exclusive of minority populations. Additionally, aff teams should be making ballot proximity arguments to try and get around clash arguments. With this strategy though, there are two huge things you need to prepare to beat.

1. Stop the round and take it to tabroom if we did something racist
2. The ballot PIC argument that says that the judge can agree with the entirety of the substance of the aff while voting neg to preserve fairness

Consequently, I also think that those two are often the most persuasive and strategic answers to these types of impact turns (ones that focus on remedying racial grievance in specific debates).

Although I have a personal preference for the in round impact turn, I'm also equally good for a counterinterp and models based impact turn. The best way to beat this is a clash turns case argument about why a more limited topic allows for better testing of aff offense/strategies, and so a risk of a TvA/Switch Side argument for the neg's interp would straight turn aff offense.

Policy Affs vs Ks

I spent my whole junior year going for race Ks so I appreciate the effort that debaters put into K arguments.

I think the most strategic version of the K on the negative is one that moots the aff. Fiated alternatives and links to the plan often lose to perm do both.

Most of my thoughts for T vs K affs apply here when it comes to impact calculus---either go for an in round impact or one about models---I'm honestly not sure if there really is an in between in these debates but if there is it probably sucks. If going for clash, you should be straight turning neg offense, and if going for fairness, you should be making arguments about why its an intrinsic good.

I think that aff teams should be willing to go for impact turns as justifications for their scholarship more often. Interventions good, cap good, heg good, or even just winning that "consequences determine ethics" are all underrated and underused strategies in my opinion. Moreover, you shouldn't be afraid to impact turn debating about the K in the first place. My senior year, I went for "debating about race bad" + "other venues solve" various times, and I think that it's an undervalued strategy.

I'll do my best to adjudicate K arguments of all types but I've only ever gone for race Ks so I'm probably going to be lost if you go for a postmodern or psychoanalytic critique, whatever that means.

Counterplan Competition

Aside from framework, this is the other part of debate that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Competition is something that took me a lot of time and effort to understand as a debater, so I respect debaters who show adequate understandings of it a lot and I'll reward your speaks. I went for process counterplans a lot my senior year, and they were my favor argument to develop over the year.

I personally think that counterplans probably only need to be functionally competitive, not because I identify as a neg terrorist (most of the time), but rather because I think that when evenly debated, textual competition is indefensible. However, I've had to defend textual + functional competition in the past, and I'm equally good for both (textually only, however, is an uphill technical battle regardless of personal bias).

The thing that makes these debates difficult to adjudicate is impact calculus. A lot of the time, aff ground and neg flex are sort of asserted to outweigh the other, but that makes for more frustrating decisions rooted in personal bias. Instead, debaters should treat these debates and any other theory debate as you would a DA + Case debate. You need defense and turns case to effectively outweigh. Think of reasons why your interp solves the others offense sufficiently, why a worsening of your impact would cause theirs, etc.

The neg should go for arbitrariness against textual competition.

I think that one important thing that both aff and neg teams should do more is establish uniqueness for their respective impacts. For example, if presented with a 100% risk aff ground impact and 100% risk neg flex impact, the tiebreaker could be that it's impossible to be aff in the status quo because the block is overpowered or that its impossible to be neg in the status quo because the topic sucks.

DAs

I don't really have any unorthodox thoughts about disads. I think that try or die is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, but it's not always in the right context. Try or die means extinction is inevitable in the squo, and the plan/CP/squo has some risk of solving that, and so (at the risk of sounding circular), it's "try or die" aff or neg to prevent said impact. For example, if the neg goes for a DA and case but only says "alt causes to warming" in the 2NR but concedes warming will cause extinction, then it's probably auto aff if the DA impact is any non-zero amount lower than 100%. Similarly, if the aff drops an internal to a process counterplan and only extends a deficit, it's try or die neg because extinction is inevitable in the squo.

If you're going for a link turn in the 2AR, you need to answer uniqueness, or else a non-zero risk of a link probably outweighs. For example, if you're straight turning the economy DA; if a recession is already being averted in the status quo and the plan boosts business confidence/growth, that could maybe be good but it would be devastating if the aff had some possibility of causing a recession, especially when there's already not going to be one. Another example is the politics DA; if the bill is already passing in the squo, who cares if the plan speeds up passage?

Random Thoughts

For speaker points, my average is like a 28.5 and it'll go up or down from there based on how well you sound, how much you debate from the flow instead of spewing blocks, how enjoyable you are to judge, etc.

I'll default to judge kick, but please remind me in the 2NC/2NR because its possible I forget.

Inserting re-highlightings is fine but I'm 100% open to contestations of the validity of those insertions.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

The 2N in me makes me pretty lenient on neg terror.

I'm never going to stop a round unless I'm explicitly told to or someone is literally unable to tell me to stop it.

If any of this is unclear, just email me and I'm glad to answer questions.

My debate thoughts are largely shaped by Ryan McFarland, Dr. Allie Chase, Kurt Fifelski, Brian Box, Tim Ellis, Sahil Jain, and Ishan Sharma

email: prateek.singh06@outlook.com

My name is Reagan Smith, pronouns she/her, fourth-year debater at Blue Valley North

email: rmsmith03@bluevalleyk12.net

bvw '25

for email chains: Iman.suleman1011@gmail.com

remember novice debate is for learning and having fun!

third year debater at blue valley high

lies >> truth

add me to the email chain- @nikoo.jang@gmail.com

Gonna make this short and simple

I don't have a preference for what you choose to run. But please make sure that you understand what you are arguing and can contextualize it in a way that is easy to understand. I prefer you speak slower but you can spread if necessary.

Quality of Arguments > Quantity of Arguments

Remember that debate is also about persuasion. Reading a bunch of cards with no context and overviews will make it harder to win the ballot.

My name is Kyle Toal and I am a sophomore at BVN. If you are using an email chain email me at kyletoal1001@gmail.com .

Blue Valley West '24

he/him

email chain - hienjoshuatran@gmail.com