Nicholas Bloor

Blue Valley West High School '22

Former Debater (Debated Policy and Congress at Blue Valley West High School 2019 - 2021)

Put me on the e-mail chain nicholasbloor14@gmail.com

I am not very familiar with this year's topic. Please, do not go over the top with acronyms. If I don't understand it, then I won't flow it.

TLDR

- I flow what I hear not what is on the speech docs

- C-X is binding.

- Use your brain, evidence isn't always required. I believe that you are smart enough to answer the arguments.

- tech over truth

- indicting authors and evidence is important and you will be rewarded for that

- an argument = claim, warrant, impact

- It's okay to be competitive, but don't be a jerk. You'll lose speaker points.

- Speed is fine, but you need to be clear. Again, I will not flow what I do not hear.

- Impact calc is very important at the top. Judge instruction is very important to me. I don't want to do the work for you - tell me why I should vote for you. I am not a big fan of judge intervention, so if you want to emphasize an argument or indict the other team's cards, please do not expect me to do that for you.

- not a fan of 10 off in the 1nc (Only bring arguments if you are willing to extend them, I don't think it's cool for a team to bury the other team in arguments and say they didn't respond to one warrant

Case - I appreciate a good case debate. For the aff, I think a lot of debaters can forget to use their 1ac cards to answer things on different flows - use them. Don't be afraid to extend evidence from earlier speeches. I LOVE highlighting of other cards but don't make them your entire speech.

Disads - read them. Just because it is a broad DA, doesn't mean it is a bad DA.

Counterplans - I like counterplans. Especially good if you run them with a DA to add some net benefit to the CP.

Topicality - yes competing interps. Feel free to run T, but I will probably only vote T if the plan is not topical or if the affirmative team fails to answer it completely. USE ALL PARTS OF T. (Listed Below)

Interpretation

Violation

Standards

Voters

T is never a reverse voter.

Theory - make you sure you have an impact to your theory arg.

Kritiks - Not very familiar on literature but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced.Don't assume I know anything and explain why it matters.

General

-Debate is an activity that is driven on education so remember that while you are competing. We also need to make sure that everybody feels safe while doing this activity. Don't be a jerk or else your speaker points will suffer. Understand that your partner is very intelligent and your opponents are very intelligent.

-Debate is open to everyone. I will end the round early if anyone says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

How to Win:

Extend evidence.

Call out your opponents for dropped args. (If this is done falsely, then your speaks will suffer)

IMPACT CALC - I will not do the impact calc for you. (If one team does impact calc, I default to that team's calc, same thing with framework)

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round start

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.

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.

Brett Cranor

bvsw '23

ku '27

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com+ bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

1--Read whatever. I'm open to functionally everything. Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable; I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The place where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class tbh) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

I debated at Blue Valley High School all four years and now I'm an assistant coach.

I'm open to any kind of argument. Debate how you want to debate, and if you want me to evaluate the round in a certain way make sure to tell me why.

Kritiks: If you run a K that's not generic don't expect me to know everything and make sure to spend time explaining the link and alt.

Topicality: Your standards and voters should justify spending time here.

Speed: Speed is fine. I can flow fast. I'll clear if I can't understand you.

Email: julia.denny@ku.edu

4th Year Senior at Blue Valley High School

I'll mostly consider all args but there are some I way a bit more heavily:

I prefer strong links over all else, impact calcs are good but i really want to see link analysis if anything

Love a good DA

I don't follow K's that well

Most importantly I follow the flow VERY heavily, so make sure you flow every arg and tell me why you should win off of it

Good Luck!

Experienced former competitor and coach in debate and forensics. While my experience is primarily in forensics, as a policy debate judge I’m familiar with and open to all types of arguments (disads, counterplans, critiques, etc.). I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, in that I will vote on any argument to decide a round assuming the teams have framed it as a primary voting issue. That being said, I rarely vote on procedural arguments like topicality. When it comes to speed reading I can’t keep up like I used to. It’s ok to read fast, but try to keep it around a 7/10 so I can keep up.

jessealankc@gmail.com

Heer Mehta

Blue Valley West '20

heermehta001@gmail.com

TLDR

- This is my third year judging, but am still a pretty new judge. I don't really keep up with the topic/lit, so keep that in mind. I am probably a better judge for policy debate. For kritik-oriented debates, I need a lot of explanation.

- tech over truth

- indicting authors and evidence is important and you will be rewarded for that

- an argument = claim, warrant, impact

- It's okay to be competitive, but don't be a jerk. You'll lose speaker points.

- I am fine with speed, but please be clear and make sure you slow down a little bit for important arguments because you want to emphasize those.

- As you get later into the debate, the fewer cards you read the better (unless you're the 1ar and you need to). I do not like seeing laptops in the 2ar/2nr. Line by line!!

- Impact calc is very important at the top. Judge instruction is very important to me. I don't want to do the work for you - tell me why I should vote for you. I am not a big fan of judge intervention, so if you want to emphasize an argument or indict the other team's cards, please do not expect me to do that for you.

- not a fan of 10 off in the 1nc

Case - I appreciate a good case debate. For the aff, I think a lot of debaters can forget to use their 1ac cards to answer things on different flows - use them.

Disads - read them.

Counterplans - I like advantage CPs, but I'm probably not a good judge for consult/PICs/process counterplans. Conditionality is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Please read a solvency advocate.

Topicality - yes competing interps. By the end of the debate, you should only be going for one standard. I see topicality as a disad, so both teams should explain why the other team's interp is worse for debate. Frame your arguments in the context of the topic - don't just read generic T blocks.

Kritiks - I went for generic neolib and arm sales kritiks my junior and senior year, so I am not well-versed in the K lit. I will listen to it if you wanna go for it, just make sure you clearly articulate things and emphasize important arguments. A lot of debaters will rely on fancy jargon to sidestep a real explanation of what the kritik actually is. It is more valuable in my eyes for you to be able to apply the argument. For these debates, judge instruction is extremely important. Long overviews at the top should be shortened and replaced by line by line throughout the flow - it's easier to follow and more organized. On the other hand, I think link/FW arguments are convincing by the aff. Make sure you're explaining why the kritik is not just the status quo and how the aff makes it worse. Fiat is illusory doesn't make sense to me.

Framework - affs need to have some link to the topic. I like fairness impacts, but I can be persuaded with topic education.

Theory - make you sure you have an impact to your theory arg.

I am in my third year of debate for Blue Valley North. Most of my preferences as a judge stem from my active participation in debate. I tend to prefer what I would consider "honest debate", so I will be predisposed to vote against particularly obscure affirmatives and I discount far-fetched disadvantages.

I understand the necessity of topicality. I prefer interpretations of each word in the resolution to be as close to their literal definitions as they are used, and by that I mean I will mostly side with whatever proposed definition I feel is most accurately describing the word in the resolution. I do, however, still need to hear an explanation for how your definition is better for debate if you want to win the topicality argument.

All claims made should be supported by specific evidence or clear logic. If you want to connect two ideas your evidence should mention both by name or I should be able to see a clear and obvious connection. Because of that, I think alternate causes and no solvency/link arguments are very effective.

I think the solvency of an affirmative is implied until the negative challenges it.

I think counter plans are a totally acceptable tool, but they require a clear explanation and should be read during the first negative speech.

I prefer to hear most disadvantages, advantages, and any other major voting issues as early in the debate as possible. Anything new read during rebuttals has a risk of being ignored as a voting issue, unless it is a natural response to a new development in the debate.

If you don't have a clear understanding of your argument I will not want to vote for you. If I get the impression you are simply parroting arguments or mindlessly repeating things your coach has told you to say, I will likely vote against you.

Debate should be about the issues of the resolution. Affirmative plans should be read because the affirmative truly believes that they can solve a problem. Negatives should read disadvantages that are actually plausible, and prove that the status quo is preferable to the affirmative, or they should propose a different way of solving the problems that they believe would be better. I do not like kritiks. I do not like underhanded tactics. This is what I believe honest debate is.

Freshman at University of Pennsylvania,

4-year Varsity/Open CX at Blue Valley West

Have fun, any arguments work. Truth and tech valued equally coming into the debate room. I value concrete arguments and fair debate.

Add me to the email chain - shishirv24@gmail.com

He/Him/His