BVW Novice Scrimmage
2022 — Overland Park, KS/US
Community Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideCurrently a 3rd-year debater at Blue Valley West High School. Feel free to run any arguments - I have no preference.
Please add me to the email chain: nbadkul@bluevalleyk12.net
BVW Debate + OO
He/Him/His
Overall be awesome and have fun! I'm here to judge to help you get better, and I'm also learning myself!
I love AvatarTLA references
***
CP:Run them and make them creative (ie, multiple planks, CP theory, all good with me).
DA:Run them!
Topicality:Not a big T-debater. I default to competing interpretations, tell me why your definition matters and prove in round abuse and I'll vote on it.
Theory:Just please don't be sneaky and hide ASPEC at the bottom of your T-Shell.
Ks: Prove to me a specific link and explain the K (I'm not hugely familiar with kritikal literature but I'm open to hearing them) and why the aff uniquely worsens it.
Speed:I'm fine with speed, slow down on analytics and SIGNPOST >>>.
"General cranky stuff"
- Your default to not knowing how to answer an argument should not be "THEY DROPPED IT!"
- That being said, DON'T DROP STUFF/don't completely drop case. Debate case!!!
At the end of the round tell me who won on what impacts/for what reasons. :)
- Have fun, any questions, just ask!
Hello! :)
(She/he/they) - I would prefer to be in the email chain! - Email: ssbhagane02@bluevalleyk12.net
I am a current 2nd year high school debater, but you should treat me as a lay judge and make sure that you fully state your arguments clearly. I prefer the quality of the argument over speaking ability. I also prefer being able to hear and understand you clearly over speed, and make sure that your overviews and underviews give enough explanation to your argument.
I don't tolerate rudeness or too much aggressiveness in round, I think that you should be able to be civil and keep it cordial with the opposing team/everyone else in the room. It will most likely make me not want to vote for you.
There will be no toleration of racism, homophobia, sexism, or other harmful statements that are personal/targeted.
I am open to most arguments and I don't find it good enough to use cross x as a whole argument over the stock issues that you are debating. I evaluate based on who's arguments makes the most sense and who wins on the most stock issues.
When it comes to framing (arguments challenging the structure of debate), arguments that argue that there are rules of debate such as needing specific framework or needing to read cards in round (not just analyticals) are not true. There are pretty much no rules in debate, and this argument is not compelling to me unless you are arguing about the structure of debate and how it's unfair, etc.
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.
bvw '25
she/her/hers
either email chain or speechdrop is good - kripagauba@gmail.com (feel free to email me after the round if you have questions!)
overall: be nice to your partner and opponents, run whatever you're most comfortable with, and have fun during the round. debate should be an educational activity and i think people get to be too competitive sometimes and forget the whole point of it. do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - it will result in an automatic loss. additionally, if you plan to run any potentially triggering or sensitive arguments you MUST give a cw/tw before the round and ensure that everyone has a chance to opt out if they aren't comfortable with it.
*btw i think rehighlighting and evidence indicts are very compelling.
if you're funny or make an avatar reference i will increase your speaks :)
***
topicality:
i don't usually run this as a debater, but i think i will mostly default to competing interpretations unless you tell me otherwise. explain why your definition is best for your standards and voters and how it impacts the round.
theory:
again, i don't usually run theory but definitely do impact calc if you choose to go for this. for lay debate i tend to lean condo bad, but if you do enough impact work i am open to changing my mind.
counterplans:
explain why the cp is mutually exclusive to the aff and make sure to reiterate the net benefits (net ben should be more than just "we don't trigger the da").
disadvantages:
i personally think generic links are not fun to watch or go against because it's not specific to the round and you don't gain much education out of it. explain the entire story of the da and weigh the impact of the da vs the aff.
kritiks:
i love watching kritiks. i think it's really important in this activity to speak about what you are most passionate about and how it applies to the real-world policies that we're discussing. if you're reading something outside of cap, militarism (maybe), imperialism, or set col, chances are it might take some explaining when you're introducing it. also make sure you truly understand what you're arguing - i think in novice debate people tend to go for the k to scare the other team but they don't understand the alt or the links itself (which is not strategic for you)!
speed:
speed is fine with me as long as it's fine with everyone in the round. however, i do think quality > quantity and i would much rather hear well thought-out arguments that are slower as opposed to speeding through something you don't understand.
but once again, prioritize whatever you want to run and think you can defend the best!
i hope you all enjoy the round!
bvw '25
she/her
sjdebate5@gmail.com
she/her
include me in the email chain: mjkirby@bluevalleyk12.net
No racism, sexism, or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated.
Remember that debate is a fun activity so have fun with your rounds.
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!
Kinda Updated 4/9/2022
Krrish Madduru
TL-DR
I am currently attending Blue Valley West and graduating in 2025. Do not make racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc comments or I will reject the team immediately. Make comfortable arguments that you like during the debate round. There should be debates that have more warranted arguments and I am tech > truth. I will vote for any argument and are open to them including Spark.
email- KrrishMadduru@gmail.com
Speechdrop, email chain, or file share is fine as long as I have the speech doc
Speed is fine, be clear though. If you aren't clear I will say it once or twice before I tank speaker points.
Case
The case debate is very underrated and truly decides whether or not I vote aff or neg. Great case debate is where you win 80% of your rounds, I probably think. 2ACs should extend and defend their 1AC; I can vote either way on the Case debate. Having a great case debate will mean I have a higher probability of voting for whatever team does more work.
Case Turns are great and I do believe that they are very underrated and sometimes are better than just regular disadvantages.
Theory
I love theory arguments and if you give me a good enough reason to reject the team I will. Normally if it's just reading blocks back and forth I'll most likely reject the argument and move on to other parts of the debate. I do believe Conditionality is a voting issue and will vote for the aff if they can explain it well enough and prove that the neg has no reasons why condo is good and not abusive. The impact debate for theory is where I position myself in these types of arguments usually.
Topicality
If the affirmative team drops T, I will assume that the negative team has won. Only if the topicality argument is Article 5; which in case of this arg I won't vote for it since it doesn't have an interp(Fukuyama doesn't count).
Topicality is the same thing as theory and if it is just reading blocks and not explaining why I should vote for T or how the aff violates the resolution I will usually disregard the argument.
Always read a counter interp on Topicality if you're the aff or most likely you're going to lose on T only if the T doesn't relate to the affirmative team's plan I will usually disregard T.
DA
I treat disadvantages such as if the affirmative team could give one reason why the Disad is a bad idea I would vote affirmative on that flow.
It is most important to not drop the impacts of a disadvantage as that can show who won the debate round.
I like DA turns case arguments.
I also like debate rounds about framing such as impact calc and why the disadvantage outweighs the advantages.
Link turns should be used correctly and should tell a story. If there is offense for the aff on the flow, I would only count it as offense if the affirmative team extends the argument and tells me why it is offense for them.
FLOW
I love the UQ overwhelms the Link arguments and thumpers.
Prove to me why the impact outweighs or if there's a 1% risk of the net benefit; why should I vote neg. Don't make me evaluate that for myself.
CP
If the affirmative team wins on the disadvantage/net-ben then I will disregard the counterplan.
Also please change the plan text on counterplans so that it includes the aff's plan. For example if the affirmative runs A5 and you give a CP Text on Biotech; all the aff needs to do is say that it has nothing to do with the aff and can't solve for the aff.
There should be plan text for the counterplan and if the affirmative brings up an arg that says that there is no plan text, I will immediately reject the arg and possibly the team.
Counterplans need to be textually and functionally competitive and net beneficial or else I will just reject the arg or go for the perm.
Whoever has better quality of evidence on the Cp flow usually wins it if it's more specific or recent. Usually CP's won't have a solvency advocate that's specific enough so make sure you have one.
Kritiks
I am familiar(most familiar with set col, cap, imperialism) with some of the kritiks, but they should be explained well for me to vote on them. I will treat kritiks as any other argument. I can vote for Kritiks even if there is no alt or the affirmative wins the alternative. I usually run K's a lot and have a good understanding on lit. Framework debates should be fun and the aff should go for these framework debates because they are usually undercovered in the neg block.
K-Aff
For K-Aff's; if you prove that the aff is cheating and the aff concedes that or the role of the ballot arg; I automatically vote neg.
Presumption is often underutilized and can easily win neg rounds as well.
Aff if you are trying to go for a K-Aff, know your k-lit and what you're talking about. There should be a call or warrant to the ballot or otherwise I would vote neg.
I usually would vote for Switch Side Debate on T-USFG, but I can also vote for other standards and procedural fairness> Structural fairness. I invite ceiling v floor arguments on T-USFG also.
If you've made it here I will give an extra 0.2 speaker points or rankings depending on the tourney if you call the other team's speech goofy in your speech.
On Cap K, don't have the wrong link on Cap; remember the aff doesn't use nato meaning the link should be nothing to do with how NATO is capitalist.
Novices
Have fun! Usually, for novice debates I tend to be more easygoing. make some crazy arguments if you want to. Debate is supposed to be fun at the end of the day and is a game to understand and learn from for future experiences in your life. Take this activity wholeheartedly and use this time to get good at debate. Also, ask questions I'm always here to help after the debate round.
Email: amarakani@bluevalleyk12.net
Experience: Third-year debator
I am a fan of the classic da and counterplan neg strat however I am open to other arguments. Kritiks are always fun and I am inclined to vote for them if I am told a compelling story. Topicality arguments aren’t my favorite but I could be inclined to vote for it depending on the argumentation. If you do plan on going for the topicality, have a clear argument on the violation. Emphasize why I as a judge must vote on topicality and how it is a pressing issue. I recommend only running it if there is a clear violation of the resolution. Don’t drop case if you aren’t certain. In the end, I am willing to listen to any argument as long as it is well thought out and compelling. Any offensive wording or argumentation, however, is a strict no go.
Speak to the best of your ability and be confident! Debate is a learning opportunity and it's perfectly normal to make mistakes.
Aashritha Musti- she/her
Email- anmusti@bluevalleyk12.net
I am currently a second year debater at BVW High School. I enjoy judging to debate rounds, and I am generally fine with most arguments although I do not prefer T args. I like listening to K negs when they are run right. Other than those, I do not have any other preferences. Remember that for me to vote for you, you need to give me a purpose. I also pay closer attention to rebuttals and cross-x's, so use that time the most wisely. Explain why you are the winner of the debate round clearly, and remember to keep track of the arguments. I can see who flows and who doesn't based on your round, and you should definitely flow because I will be. =)
In terms of speaking style, I do believe in the importance of confidence while talking and remaining composed. I prefer those debaters who can clearly articulate their thoughts and run complex arguments without confusing others. In addition, debate should be a fun educational activity, so rudeness/bullying/yelling in any form will not be tolerated. Debate should be competitive, and you should debate to win, but do not ruin the fun for others in your attempt to win.
Feel free to email me any questions or concerns you have about debate or any particular round. Thank you!!
Senior at BVW
I prefer Speechdrop (cringe ik), but you can add me to the email chain nashyosman@gmail.com
-Don't be rude, you will lose speaks for this, if it gets bad I will let you know
-tech>truth, as long as tech has warrant and impact
- I strongly believe the judge needs to adapt to the round, not the other way around(see what I did there :D), so run whatever you want as long as it's within reason.
- Im not gonna default to judge kick unless told
- IMPACT CALC is good
- If you are a novice, focus on the basics, keeping the debate simple is probably your best chance of winning the round.
-Don't steal prep
-Don't abuse speed, especially in novice/lay rounds
- I can handle speed(hopefully), if I can't understand you while spreading I will say clear
-If you have any questions before the round ask me, if I am allowed to give feedback post-round I will give it if you ask me to. If not, then just email me and I will try to respond.
-Have fun, don't stress(you can be competitive and serious without stressing)
-I like jokes, + speaker points if you reference games or sports
CASE-
-Extend args with a claim and warrant
-Explaining your impacts is important.
-I number my args on the flow
-I heavily prioritize clash in these rounds actually responding to the other team's arguments and proving them wrong while proving why you are right are two things that are essential to case debate.
KRITIK-
-Experience with the basic K's(set col, cap, security, cyber) and a little neolib.
-K's are only getting more popular, even in novice, explain the K clearly to win.
-Framework would be nice if you are a novice, this is basically just telling the judge how to evaluate the K and the impacts.
-I think you need a general link to the aff on the K in order to win, whether the link is specific or not only matters as much as it you tell me it does but please have a link.
K-AFF
I would advise against this kind of argument if you are a novice. If not, TVA is key vs FW, and you need to explain how voting aff will solve your impacts.
DA-
- Weighing impacts is key to win, defend your impacts while providing offense on the other team's impacts.
- Link/Impact turns are underrated
CP-
-Have a plan text
-Have a solvency mechanism
T
-I default to comparing interps.
-These debates are hard to judge so being really specific and using examples( I like examples about what the world would look like without X or what debate would look like with X and what would happen as a result
Theory-
-I will only reject the arg if you win a Theory arg but if you are doing Condo on aff, this is a reason to reject the team.
-If you want to do theory args in the rebuttals, you have to be able to explain your arguments well.
-
Some general things to keep in mind
Don't steal prep and time your prep honestly
Speak only as fast as you can while still enunciating each work properly
Don't be rude to the people around you
If you cut cards then send a marked copy or I will vote you down for clipping
CP
There should be plan text for the counterplan and if the affirmative brings up an arg that says that there is no plan text, I will immediately reject the arg and possibly the team.
Counterplans need to be textually and functionally competitive.
Make sure you do a good job explaining the net benefit of the counterplan.
DA
Make sure that if you are running a DA, it actually links to the AFF.
I prefer DAs with solid specific links but general links are fine too if explained well.
K
If you are reading a K, then it should be explained very well for me to vote on them.
Make sure you explain the parts and why it matters in relation to the AFF.
Impact Calc
Do good impact calc during rebuttals
I prefer Probability>Timeframe>Magnitude
Topicality
If you are using Topicality then make sure that it is justified within the round.
Theory
I think theory arguments are great. Just don't read blocks of text back and forth and explain them well. I prefer Education arguments.
Novices
Have fun! Debate is supposed to be fun at the end of the day and is a game to understand and learn from for future experiences in your life. Take this activity wholeheartedly and use this time to get good at debate. Also, ask questions I'm always here to help after the debate round.
bvw 24
aryashah0916@gmail.com
Arnesh Sharma (he/him):
BVW '25
BVW SV
Email chain - arneshsharmadebate@gmail.com
Tech > truth, truth is the tiebreaker if both teams have equally debated the technical portions.
I run mostly critical arguments, but do what you do.
TLDR: debate how you debate, fine with speed but clarity matters more, I'm open to anything*, clash is good, 2NR/2AR impact framing is key, and an argument is only an argument if it has at least a claim and a warrant
Don't be mean -- racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. = L + low speaks
Good joke about Arya Vasudevan = boosted speaks
Disclosure (1AC and past 2NRs) should occur pre-round
Some people I look up to: Nargis Suleman, Saketh Pradhan, Nish Neelakandan, Azja Butler, Shaurir Ramanujan, Zakariya Ahmed, Kyle Toal
*Please don't run death good in front of me
Case:
Very cool. Case debate is highly underrated as it tends to generate solid clash, so have fun with it.
T:
Ehh. T is fine, I'm probably not the best judge for a super techy T debate -- have a clear interp and standards, I default to competing interps best. Don't let my lack of T debates get in your way though, just explain it a little more clearly than you would to most judges and you're fine.
DA:
Cool. Specific links are great, generic links are fine, "DA outweighs and turns case" needs uniqueness to be an offensive argument, do impact calc (novices: compare the timeframe, probability, and magnitude of your impacts v. your opponents' impacts), "no risk" exists on both sides. The more you frame the impacts, the less I have to decipher them myself.
CP:
Cool. CPs need to be competitive and I prefer that it competes over the plan's mechanism. Sufficiency framing is important, and having specific solvency advocates is also key. Cheaty CPs do exist, but I'll listen to anything. I lean aff on CP theory, but still need clear explanations -- condo is good, but I'll still evaluate condo 2ARs technically and be very upset while doing so.
K:
Cool. I've mostly ran set col, imperialism, and racial cap, but regardless of what you run, contextualize the kritik and explain links thoroughly. Links need to be something that implicates the plan, but not necessarily unique. Call out 1AC authors and lines from their evidence. You should probably have an alt that can solve the links, and if you don't go for it, explain why you still win. I default to weighing the aff. Overviews are often too long and can many times be substituted with appropriate work on the line-by-line -- I'm not going to put arguments embedded in the overview onto the LBL for you. Although not necessary, knowing your literature base (especially if it's a K you have run/plan on running for a long time) is helpful and highly educational.
K-Affs:
Cool. Explain your relation to the topic and the ballot. Go for the impact turn or the we meet, idrc. If your 1AC involves a performance of any kind, it should probably have some relevance throughout the debate instead of just the first eight minutes of the round. "I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base." (Azja Butler)
Most importantly, have fun, don't take the round too seriously, and reach out if you have any questions for me.
bvw '25
for email chains: Iman.suleman1011@gmail.com
remember novice debate is for learning and having fun!
Gonna make this short and simple
I don't have a preference for what you choose to run. But please make sure that you understand what you are arguing and can contextualize it in a way that is easy to understand. I prefer you speak slower but you can spread if necessary.
Quality of Arguments > Quantity of Arguments
Remember that debate is also about persuasion. Reading a bunch of cards with no context and overviews will make it harder to win the ballot.
Blue Valley West '24
he/him
email chain - hienjoshuatran@gmail.com
bvw '25
she/her
bluevalleywestbw@gmail.com
he/him, freshman at Columbia studying polisci, debated exclusively policy 4 yrs at Blue Valley West at both KDC and DCI/NatCir level
call me Kevin/judge, idrc
add to email chain: kevin.xu@columbia.edu
T/L:
Please be nice (to me, the other team, and actually your partner), have fun, and talk about stuff you're passionate about
• This activity can be toxic but we'll all have a more enjoyable time if this round isn't
• I'm fine evaluating any arg as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, otherwise offensive — you will lose if it is
Haven't judged or done any research about this year's topic or its "norms" (most I can say is probably, as ashamed as I am now, I read Andrew Yang's UBI book when it first came out)
If you use some funny analogy or joke, I might boost your speaks
Not gonna go into too much detail but please ask about anything you might be curious abt
Biggest debate influence/inspo: Brandon Yao (he made me write this)
General:
Please do clear signposting (love numbered arguments for some reason), line by line, and judge instruction
Feel free to spread BUT clarity and efficiency > speed, please don't become an incomprehensible spreading mess or clip
• It'll be better for both of us if you slow down for analytics, tags, anything you want to emphasize
• Haven't watched a debate in like a year so do with that info what you will (and be extra clear and explain plz)
• Grouping and cross-applying arguments is strategic and something I will make note of when giving speaks
Make sure to actually properly extend args to carry them throughout a round — I've always disliked when teams don't do this and will reward you if you do
• Don't just say "extend 1AC 1" or "extend Blessing 22", please extend warrants too or else your evidence loses some value
• From experience, you can win a lot of debates against a lot of really good teams by mentioning a failure to do this
Policy:
Was mostly a policy debater
I find T to be underused by the neg, especially because I've witnessed so many 1ARs just completely fumble on it if the neg spends even a couple minutes on it in the block
• I'm coming in with no idea what the "consensus" about topical affs has become
• Please don't just re-read your same blocks over and over, these debates still need progression, clash, impacts, etc
Link chains are super important obviously
• Ev quality > quantity (when explained well), esp when it comes to disads (where link chains are often suspicious)
Rare massive ptx disad fan
• Plz don't rely only on months old UQ cards from camp
• I think smart, informed analytics can go a long way (e.g.: just analytically naming a bunch of thumpers)
• Will always appreciate some interesting or unique DAs — I cut a lot of uncommon PTX DAs and hated when judges would be skeptical of them
Impact calc/sufficiency framing analysis!!!!!
• Impact turns, DA O/W and turns case, case O/W and turns DA, etc, love that stuff
Do I believe presumption/absolute defense is a thing? Probably, but you might have a harder time convincing me of 0 risk than others
Can go either way on judge kick if instructed
Not the most proficient theory judge, warrant out reject arg vs reject team
• I will say I find the aff defending like 2 condo and neg defending like 3 condo slightly silly and arbitrary but do what you gotta do
K:
Have I debated against and for kritical args ((racial) cap, imperialism, taoism, Nietzsche, etc) and read critical lit? yeah. Do I want you to treat me like I have? Not really.
I'm going to know a lot more than a lay judge but I don't want to misevaluate the contents of a kritical argument after not understanding it due to a lack of explanation, especially on the alt level
Don't really care what you run for the most part, just explain it and how it interacts with the aff
I think I tend to be more swayed by args about root cause/alts or links turning case than "you link you lose", but either way can win depending on what happens
With all that being said, big fan, found myself loving K debates more and more throughout high school and ran one basically every neg round senior year