Debated in high school a few years ago at BVN, and I don't particularly miss it; student at UMKC School of Med; anything goes if you do it technically well (particularly T and K) and you tell me why to vote on it; whatever speed you want as long as I can hear taglines; time yourselves; clash wins debates so don't just read opposing pieces of evidence - you need to explain why yours is better; technical difficulties happen, but be quick about finding alternatives or fixes; don't just say an author's name if you want to extend an argument - have to extend a warrant with it; I likely won't react either way to anything you say, but I will be paying attention; I'll typically look at evidence only at the end if there's something I want to clarify for myself or was contentious in the debate, otherwise I have no issue keeping up with what you read as long as tags are clear; be quick and efficient please - nothing is worse than a debate that goes over the allotted time.

CX - I don't care, you all agree on whatever you want. It's your time for questions, not to make arguments, so I typically don't pay much attention to it. If you want to bring something up from CX, do it in your next speech.

RFD - I don't intervene as a judge and look through your evidence for you, so if Neg doesn't give me specific warrant clashes or anything worth voting on in 2NR, I'll default Aff on evidence and decision. The burden of proof is on the Neg.

Don't lie about data or facts; Google is right there.

I like creative arguments, and I get really bored of hearing the same things over and over again, so if you're using commonly read arguments, be either very knowledgeable or creative.

The point of debate is to have fun, so be casual and don't be aggressive to your opponents or partner.

Email: sjkhan@bluevalleyk12.net

Background

I'm a current Debate student for 3 years now, so for the most part I know what you'll be talking about. Assuming you didn't just randomly click this button because you got bored, I assume you want to know how to cater to me as a judge. Well, here's the gist of it.

Speaking

When it comes to speaking, all I care about is that you're clear in telling me what you want me to know regardless if fast or slow, loud or soft. There's no pressure to need to talk a certain way because you'd think it would work better or follow the flow of the round.

Case

Personally, this is where the meat of any round should be. Off-case will always be a thing and technically weighs more on who wins the round, but I still like that you keep in mind that the round began in the case and thus should conversely tie back into it one way or another.

Topicality

I prefer that if it's brought up, you talk about it at the beginning of your speech as it lets me know if you actually care about arguing whether the case is topical. Topicality isn't just an argument that you can run as a method of getting a win, but something you need to dedicate your speeches to. If you're not willing to put the time into telling me why the case is or isn't topical, I may as well just stop taking notes on that argument and just flow that argument cause you've convinced me otherwise about how much you care about the argument.

Disads

All I can say is, structure it right and make it significant to this round. Every piece needs to be set up correctly, but mainly focus on making sure it links and has an impact that makes sense, has warrants, and isn't a dated claim.

Counter Plans

If you can, try to pick a CP that's somewhat relevant to the case. Generic CPs are fine, but note it can be taken as you just trying to fill up arguments when you could probably argue something else. Make sure that there is net benefit to the CP than just saying "it'll solve faster" because you're not challenging the aff, just giving me a different way to do aff and gives the aff more warrants.

Kritiks

I don't really care too much for these. I'll still judge them and evaluate the arguments with the presumption that it's relevant and has a reasonable amount of work into making the argument, but generally I don't want to have to sit through one.

Impact Calc

Make sure you're actively trying to weight out the debate, even if you don't have specific evidence for the arguments, if you can reasonably weigh out the arguments in cohesive fashion that isn't just you trying to pull random information out of your head to win, than I'll go for it. I still expect you to try to take out evidence and argue it, but if push comes to shove, work it out on your feet.

I also expect that you do it, even if I can deduce which one weighs more in the end, I'm only going to follow what you try to tell me will weigh more. It's not my job to weigh in arguments you bring up.

Online Video based stuff

Please be on time for your round, keep your video on at all times, and be ready to set up an email chain or drop the speech in at the start when you can. Technical difficulties are a thing, but I expect that at the beginning we should be prepared at the start.

Miscellaneous Stuff

# of Off-case arguments: Please be smart about how you use them. Just because you only need to win one of these doesn't mean I should expect to see you dump a bunch of arguments and be inconsistant in how you argue them.

Cross-Ex: I will always presume that we'll approach it closed. However, if you want to do open cross-ex then that's fine with me, but please talk about it at the beginning of the round. As for the actual cross-ex, get to the point, I know you can use it as time to extend your points but the point of it is to ask questions, rambling tells me you have no answers.

Personal Attacks: Please be professional, this somewhat of an extension of speaking but when you talk please try to focus on the round and not your opponents. You can be aggressive, but make sure it's in the line of being a sensible person.

Speeches and Speech Docs: When making a speech, please only include cards that you'll actually be reading or make it so that we can use it to follow along as the point of having it is to keep up with the speaker. I understand that there'll be times where you mistime how long you'll actually be using to which I ask that you specifically address it and move on. Conversely, this means the only arguments I'll recognize in the debate are the ones that have been verbally discussed. To me, it doesn't matter if your speech doc has the evidence for that argument, if you don't talk about it, I won't consider it fair ground in the debate and won't take it into account when determining the victor even if you reference the argument.

Aside from all that, I hope that both teams give it there all and have fun most of all.

I debated at Blue Valley North 2018-2022

I don’t have much topic knowledge so try and avoid acronyms in tags for the first constructives  

email chain: atoniappa@gmail.com

If you are smart in cx and apply it during your speech I will increase your speaker points.

being smart does not equal being mean or talking over your opponents -- please be respectful 

tech over truth 

Evidence 

Your evidence has to make arguments-- three buzz words highlighted will make me give the opposing team more leeway with their responses (especially internal link cards). 

Case

I care about case and I don't think it's utilized enough in most debates. “I’m willing to vote on defensive arguments against incomplete affirmatives.”- Brian Box 

Topicality 

This was my favorite argument to go for. I believe it should be looked at from an offense defense perspective. I'm most likely going to default to competing interps if it's not clear you're sitting on reasonability -- I don't think there's such thing as a bad interp it's just about how you debate it. 

CP

judge kick is a logical extension of condo --- if condo or judge kick is never verbally specified (in cx or the speeches before the 2nr) and the 1AR says no judge kick I'll be more likely to default AFF if nothing is verbally specified by the negative throughout the debate and the 2ar says no judge kick I'll default AFF. 

I like counter plans that are textually and functionally competitive but if you impact out why having one is better for the sake of competition I’ll vote on it 

Neg

- internal net benefits need to be able to withstand a CX 

- threshold for what needs to be highlighted in a 1NC solvency card isn't that high in comparison to internal links or impact cards

AFF

- Impact out your solvency deficits 

- A good explanation of PDB can be very persuasive 

DA

I like the politics da :) 

don't be afraid to go for DA and case

I think da turns case can be very persuasive 

the more specific the link the easier it is to win my ballot 

Theory

I’m good with whatever— reject the arg not the team is enough for me if its not the 2nr 

The neg reading a bunch of off doesn’t make me lower the bar for aff team going for condo 

these debates can get really annoying when it’s two ships sailing in the night and if you debate it like that it will be reflected in speaks 

K’s 

If the alt is not explained clearly in cx and the 2NC contextualization is very different than cx your speaks will drop. If you’re going for the alt I need a thorough explanation of what it does and why it matters 

Tbh not the best judge for high theory — I’m not super familiar with most lit other than set col, cap, and IR k’s but as long as you’re flushing out the arguments and not spreading your blocks at top speak it should be fine 

If you’re going for a reps link PLEASE have specific lines from the aff 

When evaluating K debate I start on the link then move to FW — if you do not have a link specific to the aff or the affs impacts I don’t see a world where I vote neg unless you win framework 

K affs 

I think these debates are very interesting 

please do not read t blocks straight down without engaging in the aff's offense 

I need an implicit answer to the TVA in the 1ar or at the very least 2ar answer needs to match 1ar warrants with the same wording 

K v K debates are interesting but links to the plan/rehighlighting are even more important in these debates