pronouns: she/her

add me to the email chain: bkcoleman@bluevalleyk12.net

I don't really care what you run, just don't be rude.

meterovic@bluevalleyk12.net
I debate at Blue Valley North

tech > truth

you can spread

I love net benefits

I NEED IMPACT CALC

I care about links the most go for that

I can flow

altsolvency1@gmail.com

Do whatever you want

BVN '23, Harvard '27

Put me on the email chain: elizabethrplace @ gmail.com

I am not coaching for a high school and have very little topic knowledge, so avoid using acronyms in tags for the first constructives.

I believe debate is a technical game and because of that I almost always default to tech over truth. That being said, evidence quality matters a lot. Application of meaningful author indicts and pointing out nonsensical highlighting is extremely persuasive to me.

Refutation also matters. Please don't read long overviews that don't engage with arguments being made in round. Make sure impact calculus engages with arguments the other team is making.

Prioritize clarity over speed. If you go fifteen off and I can't understand a single tag, you are probably losing the debate.

Counterplans

Condo is good, but I am more than willing to vote for condo bad if it's debated properly.

I like counterplans 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

Delay and uncertain counterplans are probably not competitive and I am easily persuaded by "perm: do the cp"

Kritiks

Debate them technically

Probably need to be centered on the plan, if not please have a justification for why that is good

Planless Affs

I believe procedural fairness is an impact, but you still need an explanation for why that's true.

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

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with buzzwords.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I'll + .2 speaks if you make the analogy
"Like a road, it goes both ways". I don't like death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

Normal Speaks:

27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?

28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away

28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good

29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament

Inflated Speaks

28.5 = baseline

28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh

29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good

29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author".

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.

Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore I am a condo god. But otherwise read whatever.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate

Hi! My name is Ellie:)

I really like clear speakers and a good pace. If you go too fast and I can't understand you I will definitely count off for that. Also, please please please give me a road map, it's super helpful. Next, make sure you know when your speech is and when you're asking cross-x questions! My opinion on DA's, topicality, etc. is that if you run it, MAKE SURE you run it correctly and effectively.

I graduated from Blue Valley North HS in 2021. I have not judged a debate since, and I am not familiar with the topic. Keep that in mind when you use certain jargon.

Add me to the email chain: avalsan919@gmail.com

My biggest pet peeve is people that don’t know how to speak or spread. You are not “fast” if you sound like a sink drain while spreading. You are unclear. I will clear you. Debaters that can debate without a laptop in the last two rebuttals will get high speaks.

Also, evidence probably matters to me less than other judges. Obviously I like great ev, but I care more about your ability to convey that evidence to me persuasively. If you tell me to read a card after the round, I will, and then evidence quality will matter a lot more to me. My decision generally will be much more based on who does the better debating versus who has the better evidence. The times I really weigh evidence the most is in T debates.

Topicality:

If you are neg, give me a list of affs their interpretation justifies. Explain why their vision of debate makes life impossible for the negative. Indict their evidence. I like when debates focus a lot on precision and limits. If you are aff, reasonability is an unlikely W.

Topicality vs K Affs:

Fairness and clash/debatability impacts are my favorite. I am not a huge fan of topic education or mechanism education arguments/impacts, but I will listen to them. I probably have a neg bias when it comes to these types of debates, so be extra clear if you are aff and write my ballot for me.

Counterplan:

I’m normal here. Bad judge for aff teams going for any sort of theory, including condo. I will kick the counterplan for the neg.

Disad:

I’m also pretty normal here. I like teams that indict the other person’s evidence rather than reading ten straight cards. However, indicting the other team’s evidence and reading ten straight cards is even better. Impact calc can be so good when the neg team actually makes specific turns case arguments and applies their impact to the aff. Don’t just say something outweighs; explain WHY it outweighs and how it implicates aff solvency. The link is most important to me, here and generally.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with and understand debates regarding the most common k’s– set col, cap, antiblackness, etc.. If you read baudrillard, foucault, or something else weird, good luck. I am very much tech over truth, and so you will probably win if you really out-tech the other team, BUT just know that you will have to do a lot more work to win. I love neg teams that pull lines out of the 1AC and aff evidence when explaining their links, and I love aff teams that can actually indict negative evidence. If you read down a pre-prepared block the entire 2nc, 2nr, or 2ar, I am going to be annoyed. Specificity is key here. Indicts of the other team’s evidence > just reading random cards you found in a backfile.