Debated 4 years at Blue Valley West High School | Current 1st year at KU (not debating)

Add me to the email chain : nsbinshtok@gmail.com | Feel free to email me before/after the round with questions.

General :

1 — I primarily debated Open/KDC, and mainly ran policy arguments.

2 — I'm unfamiliar with what is being run in current high school topics, and haven't judged yet this season.

3 — I'm okay with speed as long as it is clear. You should not be reading your analytics, tags, and signposts at full speed, or you might lose speaks. I will have a much easier time following along the more you include in your speech docs, analytics included.

4 — Tech > Truth, I will only evaluate what is on my flow at the end of the round. If you want a higher chance of your arguments coming out on top, ensure that you are clearly extending your evidence throughout the round. I love seeing good clash within a debate round, and expect you to directly address specific arguments and evidence that have been read by your opponents in your line-by-line. Dropped arguments are important, but you still need to articulate what effect it should have on the flow.

5 — Argument preferences : You can read whatever you'd like in front of me, just keep in mind that I may not be the best judge for some arguments. On-case debate is vital, there are always arguments that can be made on either side, and the work you do here tends to be applicable throughout the entire round. I love a good DA+CP combo, especially when paired with strong impact calculus and clear articulation of the net benefit. I enjoy theory and topicality, I just feel these debates lack clash at times. Ensure your interpretation is clear, and I believe TVAs are a very underutilized tool. In terms of K debates, I've watched few and participated in even fewer. Take your time explaining your alternative and framework for me.

6 — Speech preferences : Clear signposting and adding emphasis/changing your inflection on important arguments throughout the whole round will help you gain more speaks. CX is underutilized, I will be listening, and I love hearing arguments in speeches based upon what was said in CX. By the end of your rebuttals, you should have more or less written my ballot for me. Distill the round down into the most important arguments, and have a clear idea for how you have won that is emphasized in your speech.

Hi! My Name is Mackenzie Leece. (Pronouns- She/her) I am a 4th-year debater at Blue Valley West High school. Make sure to include me in the email chain: mjleece@bluevalleyk12.net

General: Make sure to always debate with a positive attitude and demonstrate good sportsmanship. Also, be aware of your audience/components in regard to how your argument might affect them. Bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated in the round and will result in you losing the round. So just remember to be nice!

Performance: I tend to vote for teams that confidently present their plan in a clear and enthusiastic manner. Make sure to read your plan with emotion so I understand the urgency of your plan. Also make sure to give roadmaps, overviews/under-views, and consistently make eye contact with me so you aren't just reading a bunch of info. Speed is not the most important thing to me when considering the winning team. It is more compelling to me if you can read a speech at a good pace with clarity and emotion.

Voting: I generally vote for the team that answers and combats all arguments brought up during the round. I vote for the team that efficiently presents/counters the plan with confidence and emotion. I don't vote for teams that are rude or clearly don't know the information that they are reading.

If you have any information that you think I should know please let me know. I will do what I can to make you feel comfortable in the round!

he/him

blue valley west '23

UPenn '27

assistant debate coach @ blue valley west

sakethsaipradhan@gmail.com

Top level:

I debated for 4 years at blue valley west - mostly k on the neg and a mix of policy and k on aff. I've been on both sides of policy vs k, k vs k, k vs fw, and policy vs policy (although not as much), so please read what YOU want to read and not what you think I want to hear. I will caution, though, that the extent of my familiarity with k literature is cap, set col, imperialism, security/militarism, afropess (mostly read up on Wilderson, Sexton, and Warren but never ran their arguments in a round), and some variations of IR (racial or fem). Anything beyond this will probably require more 2nc explanation than you'd like.

If I were to explain how I think you can win a debate in front of me in one sentence, it would be to execute the perfect balance between (a) macro-strategy + judge instruction (b) clash + line-by-line ACCORDING to the speech in the round.

T: Never an RVI. I usually lean towards competing interpretations being good, so if you go for a reasonability push, you need to thoroughly explain why the aff is "good" and why "good" is "good enough." As for the neg, a clear explanation of what and how the aff violates a word/phrase in the resolution through the 2NR is important to me. Both teams: be sure you understand your interpretations because T is an argument functionally grounded in definitional accuracy and author qualifications.

Counterplans: Clearly identify the net benefit in the block and explain how the counterplan solves the aff or some of the aff. I'm neutral on the textual v. functional competition debate, so take that as you will. I think the aff typically has two methods of winning the counterplan debate (a) [1] win aff key [2] win some sort of permutation (please not intrinsic) [3] explicitly answer each plank (b) theory.

Disads: I typically err on the side that there's a risk of the disad's internal link chain, unless the aff [1] wins some sort of top-level framing argument that "zeroes" the risk of the disad [2] or wins a thumper [3] or wins that the impact is functionally impossible. My only ask in these debates is that there's sufficient impact framing from both sides. Otherwise, everything is fair play.

Kritiks: A clear link to the aff - whether it be a criticism of scholarship, rhetoric, performance, representations, etc - is absolutely necessary. An explanation of how the alt solves the link(s), in my opinion, is what the core of block alt explanation should be. It's obvious when debaters run a K without reading and understanding the thesis the authors they use make, so please only read a K if you truly grasp the K's theory of power/thesis/etc. For the aff, depending on the type of K, I think a cohesive framework push and/or no link + permutation is the most reliable defense (and often successful when executed efficiently). Both teams: clash + explanation > blocks saturated with jargon. **If you're inclined to run suffering/death good, please know I have an extremely high threshold for these arguments**

K aff v. fw: These debates are simply a question of who's model of debate is better. I believe clash is uniquely critical in these debates, as they structure your ability to articulate how and why your model of debate is more accessible/better for education/etc. A good 2nr fleshes out the role of debate, its implications, and how those implications interact with the 1ar's disad to framework AND terminal impact. On the flip side, a good 2ar chooses between a counter-interpretation or impact turn to framework, sufficiently explains my role as a judge, and does top-level analysis on why their model of debate offers xyz advantages that outweigh the neg's terminal impact(s) to framework.

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to email me and/or ask before the round!

Samuel Wang (updated for DCI 1/5/24)

Put me on the Email chain: email - samdubs8@gmail.com

I'm a Boomer - I last debated varsity in 2021 running a k-aff (logistics) and policy. Please spread understandably, my threshold for speed is pretty low - please take a card or two out if you're unsure - I haven't judged since 2022.

Treat me as somewhere between a lay judge and a super technical judge - Please don't spread at top speed!!!

Short version: Do what you need you feel like you need to do to win (I will vote for a cheesy argument), or run your most comfortable arguments. Judge instruction and impact calc are key in the rebuttals and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on some args if you give a warranted explanation, as long as they're not completely new.

Speaker points: If you make jokes I'll bump your speaks! If you're rude then I'll dock them a little :( Again please spread understandably, I prefer slower and more dramatic speeches.

General stuff:

DAs: Impact calc is key, I love DA turns case args, make sure you don't just blow a DA off if you're aff even if you don't think the DA is that good - I will vote for a dumb DA if you're crushing on it (like warming good or something).

T: Explain VERY well, I have no experience judging this year or even know the resolution. I'm still willing to vote for it though!

Theory: I have a very high threshold for me to reject the team, otherwise it's a reason to reject the argument.

CPs: I'm not familiar at all with the CPs for this year, but I'm still willing to vote for a weird CP.

Ks: I'm familiar w/ most (except for high theory Ks), but I need a link that actually makes sense that makes sense in the context of the round or the aff - I have experience with Set Col, Afro Pess, cap and security. Framework is super important for me, and I'm willing to vote on a K without the alt if you explain it well.

K-affs: I'm will vote for them, but you need to have a role of the ballot arg that explains why the ballot is key to solve. I have a low threshold for voting on the cap k and heg vs K-affs.

Any questions just shoot me an email - it's above :)