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.

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

I'm an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I also debated in high school a million years ago.

Don't speak super fast. I need to be able to understand what you are saying.

I will be flowing the debate. I should see you flowing the debate as well.

Please label ALL off-case arguments in the 1NC. It's confusing and bothersome to me if you don't.

I don't like disclosure debates- you should always disclose before the round starts unless breaking new.

CPs and DAs are fine- the links should be clear.

I usually don't vote on T.

Framework- Tell me why I should frame the debate the way you tell me to.

K- I am okay with you running one as long as it's explained really well.

Dropped arguments in the round- please try not to do this.

Avoid saying the other teams arguments are "abusive".

I value quality over quantity. Please don't read cards the whole time!

If you have questions, please ask!

Hello!

My name is Molly James (she/her). I'm a senior on the speech and debate team at Blue Valley High School. I do Policy Debate, US Extemp, Oration, Impromptu, and Congressional Debate.

EXTEMP

This is the area I'm most qualified in. I was the 2023 Kansas 6A state champ in USX and a 2023 NSDA USX semifinalist.

I value organization, source implementation, and clarity in argument.

POLICY

When judging Policy Debate, I do flow, so make sure you're being smart about the cards you're reading and applying them in the right spot.

Something I find really important is signposting. If you don't know what that means it's basically just applying evidence and analytical arguments specifically to things the other team says. In other words, you should do the work to tell me where your arguments apply and why they take out an opposing argument.

I'm decently good at understanding speed, but please slow down when reading taglines and still make sure to speak clearly and articulately. There is a huge difference between talking fast and being incoherent.

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!

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.

I am in my 3rd year of debating at Blue Valley with experience in KDC and DCI, so I can understand both styles.

Overall I will weigh the debate based on the framework you give, but if none is provided I'll default to policy maker.

You can run whatever args you want as long as you can prove why. I'm fine with K but it has to be done right with an alt. I run K on occasion but they are not my favorite args. For DA's run whatever DA you want. I run lots of weird DA's just try to have specific links. You can run generic links but it has to be backed up very effectively. For CP's run whatever CP you want. I prefer states or other alternative plans, but I don't love consult plans. When the aff perms a CP you have to prove how they are not mutually exclusive you can't just say perm and be done.

Other args- for T run whatever T you want, the aff has to win T to win the round. I run T all the time in my rounds.

On disclosure, in higher level rounds it will be a voting issue but in novice it's not the end all be all. I prefer disclosure but it won't win you the round if you run disclosure theory.

For vagueness I will weigh it in my decision, but it wont only vote on vagueness. Plans do not have to be overspecific just topical. You do not need 3 different plan planks. Those affs are annoying.

Overall in a round I'm fine with speed, I don't think it is really necessary but I can understand it. Just be respectful of your opponents. No bigotry at all, we are here to debate and have fun.

Misc. -Road maps should be 10 seconds or less, after that I will start your speech time

- add me to speech drop or email chain. I will be flowing so seeing your ev will help

Let me know if you have any other questions before the round starts!

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

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

email: rmsmith03@bluevalleyk12.net