I debated at Blue Valley North from 2020-2024 and now I'm currently a freshman debating at KU.

email: claireelizabethain@gmail.com -- prep does not stop until you hit send on the email.

I understand this topic to be more intricate and complex than many in the past, so err on the side of over-explanation earlier in the debate. It is your burden to explain topic-specific concepts that would be difficult for the average person to understand.

I care more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments in a quality manner than the type of arguments you choose to read. I will vote on any argument on my flow as long as it's articulated at a high technical level. That being said, I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence based arguments that rely on the ability to prove an undesirable effect of the affirmative. I think there is an increasing trend in negative teams trying to find more convoluted ways to avoid disproving the desirability of a plan, but obviously that's a debate to be had. I am not a fan of scouring my flow to piece together arguments and think that it is a form of judge intervention. If you read evidence with a purpose, speak clearly, and use your flow (if you are not flowing, I don't understand why I should flow you) to refute arguments, you will receive high speaks from me. Judge instruction is an important part of final rebuttals and you should clearly explain what earns you the ballot.

It feels as though less debates I've watched or been apart of have actually talked about the affirmative. I don't think most negative teams utilize case enough --- not including reading 7 impact defense cards. "I'm willing to vote on defensive arguments against incomplete affirmatives." - Brian Box.

There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. If I can't understand the argument you are making do not be surprised when it does not make it onto my flow. I will clear you twice, if you remain unclear I will stop flowing your speech.

On this note, I have hospitalizing migraines that make me somewhat sensitive to sound. All I ask is that you don't literally scream at me while you're speaking.

Evidence you read must make an argument. Highlighting three buzzwords and explaining something in the tag will make me give the opposing team more leeway in their responses. I believe that internal link cards have become especially outrageous and are under utilized when comparing impacts.

In almost every instance of a DA or a K the link matters most. I probably look at link specificity more than most judges. If I have a hard time pinpointing something specifically bad about the affirmative, I will have a hard time voting for you. It's very convincing to me if you explain how the link (or the entire) argument disproves the case or makes the aff advantages irrelevant. In the context of a K, if the alt is contextualized multiple times in different ways your speaks will drop. If you choose to go for the alt I need a clear explanation of what the alt looks like and why it matters. In K debates the team that slows down, and best explains their argument is the team that will likely get my ballot

I think that planless affirmatives sacrifice solvency or links to the topic for framework preempts, which make me believe that they are incomplete. The best way to debate in front of me is to slow down, refute arguments, and explain to me what you want me to vote on. If you are just blasting blocks into your computer you probably won't be happy with the result of the debate. Both aff and neg need to contextualize the round to the affirmative. I also need (need) a reason that you have won the ballot in this debate. I think often times this just becomes a block battle that has almost no interaction -- don't do this or you will probably be unhappy.

I am most comfortable in "policy vs policy" or "policy vs k" rounds, but believe in my ability to give a coherent RFD no matter the style of debate.

Ask any questions before or after the round/tournament and I will be happy to answer.

He/Him

4th year debater at Blue Valley Southwest

Add me to the email chain: Aidencanon5@gmail.com

--

Novice Debate

--

Top-level

I'm pretty tech over truth, if you explain an argument well, I will give it a lot more weight than a bunch of underdeveloped arguments. I've ran everything from politics to k-affs so just run what you are comfortable with.

I will only evaluate arguments that you extend into the 2nd rebuttal, If you don't extend the parts of the ADV, DA, CP, K, T, or whatever argument you are running, I will have a very hard time voting for it.

Please read a plan text with your 1ACs and CPs (unless it is a K aff then you're fine ig) otherwise I won't evaluate any solvency for your impacts

Please don't read half your 1AC in the 1AC and then read the rest of it in the 2AC, I really don't want to evaluate it, especially because it just feels like you're trying to avoid clashing with the other team.

In a policy round, I will always vote for the team that presents the best potential world, tell me why the aff or neg world is better or worse than the squo and I will have a very easy time voting for you.

I am a Junior at Blue Valley North, add me to the email chain at

bvncoleman@proton.me

he/him

I am a policymaker judge, voting based on what you tell me or obvious oversights. I am not averted by a handshake, kritiks are ok, permutations are ok. I appreciate unique strategy and analytical arguments, and one might persuade me with good questions or answers in the cross-examinations. I can understand most general vocabulary and commonly used acronyms in debate, such as DA, FG or AT, having taken two debate classes. I will expect you to know what things mean in your files and apply them correctly, and that will be noted in the speaker ranks. I see the environment as important, but that alone will not sway me. I love topicality and impact calc battles, winning one plays a big part in my vote. Framework = fun, the best pathos arguments, for me, will be there. Please be clean, interpret that as you like. Show friendliness and cooperation with your partner. You won't necessarily lose speaker points for being 'mean', just make sure it stays within the bounds of basic courtesy, respect, and debate guidelines. Otherwise it will.

My shortcomings and partiality to keep in mind:

I have never taken an economics or politics class other than advanced social studies and history. I am a slow writer, so I would appreciate it if you spoke clearly and didn't read important points too fast: read background quickly, read points slowly. I will probably not flow something if it seems immediately unimportant to the debate. Most of my close decisions have been because of fruitless 'evidence competitions', so if you find that there is evidence contradicting the other side's, do something other than adding more evidence please. For example, cite credibility or date or context as reasoning to prefer your cards. I also dislike when a group of people or political party is attacked without context, because I believe that kind of debate is illogical and that these groups vary a lot. If you do that, at least imply that it's not because of the individuals. For negative teams, make sure you have at least some preparation for each affirmative case, even if it's generic. Lack of preparation is conducive to undercooked arguments.

If you believe that the notes I wrote in a ballot were insufficient, it's probably because I feared being late to the next round, and you can try contacting me to get some more reasoning later. I often use the back of the ballot as a flow sheet or attach a flow sheet, so you can see my thought process throughout the debate.

BVHS 2026

renjeti@bluevalleyk12.net

I want to judge rounds where everyone is smiling and enjoying themselves. We all woke up early on a Saturday to be here, and the rounds should make it worth it. First of all, this means that we should all be kind and respectful to each other, and not steal prep time. Also, your speaker points will likely be boosted if you make jokes, references, or analogies, or if you put your arguments in unique, relatable words, especially during rebuttals. These of course have to tie back to your arguments and actually make sense, don't just say a bunch of random things in your speech. Title your doc something unique/interesting/funny and that will also make the round more fun.

I definitely do not want to judge rounds where everyone is just reading off of their computer without looking up, without signposting, and in a monotone voice. That is boring and not what debate is supposed to be; your words should be and sound convincing. If that is what the round ends up being, I will be very sad.

As for the actual arguments, judge instruction during rebuttals is important and you should be "writing the ballot" for me: tell me the arguments you are winning, how you are winning them, and why that means you win the round. Impact calculus can be very helpful and important for this. I don't really care what arguments you read; I'll listen to pretty much anything. I don't have very much experience with K's, though, so explain them in an easily understandable way in your own words if you choose to run one.

To summarize, be chill and try to win.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, debate, life, LeBron's legacy, or anything else, feel free to ask me.

follow my instagram for a cookie: @rohan.enjeti (please don't do it during the round)

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!

Hey there,

My name is Nikos and I'm a 2-year debater at Blue Valley North high school.

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

Do your best, and most of all, have fun!

glhf!

email- bvndebatent@gmail.com

Hello! I'm a junior at BVNW.

Background - I debated freshman year (NATO) at Pittsburg High, sophomore (redistribution) and junior (IPR) at Blue Valley Northwest. I've judged 11 rounds between four tournaments so far. This year I'm in charge of mentorship at BVNW and I've put a lot of emphasis on helping our novices. Being for real, policy debate isn't my favorite - I'm a forensics kid through and through. I am the President and program founder of forensics at BVNW - my favorite event is Congress!

Important - My RFD will be based off the arguments themselves but my speaks will be based off your speaking ability. I consider myself a mix of stock issues and policymaker, I will weigh the impacts only if all stock issues are fulfilled. I am open to a gameplayer round if both teams want it. Don't be rude!! The biggest thing that will boost your speaks is analysis of your evidence - explain what it means. Persuade me!! Kicking an argument is a lot better than dropping an argument - this will be reflected in the RFD. I have very strong opinions about using AI in a round. Rebuttals are very important for selling me one way or the other. Signposting is great! (and necessary!)

Aff - The 1AC is your biggest friend. Pull through your solvency cards like there's no tomorrow :). If neg drops your solvency or advantages, bring them back up! I'm a big fan of the "1% solvency" schpeel. 2AR should have impact calc and judge instruction

Neg - Make crazy arguments if you want. Don't drop the case! 2NR should have impact calc and judge instruction

The specifics

Framework is awesome! If you provide me framework and the other team doesn't, you will get my ballot anything else in the round bar in round abuse.

Counterplans are amazing. I love clash of solvency! Net benefit should be required, if the CP isn't net beneficial, then why should I vote for it? PICs generally suck. I have mixed feelings about advantage CPs but I'm open to them.

Disadvantages are great! Almost always have one, even generic. I have a soft spot for Politics DAs but they need good links.

Kritiks are interesting, I'm open to them. If you don't know the literature though, it's very obvious :(. Please explain everything thoroughly to me, especially the link and the solvency of the alt.

I'm open to theory. I haven't fully made up my mind on conditionality, so if we get here in a round this is a good chance to truly persuade me. Other theory args I'm not very familiar with, so slow down there.

Topicality is iffy. I used to be a big hater of it, it's grown on me a little. I'll vote on it if it's blatant, but I generally err aff on T rounds.

Kritikal Affs are interesting, I'm open to them. Analyze a ton for them.

I'm pretty standard on speed. If it's not on the speech doc and I can't understand you, then I'm not going to flow that arg, and that won't help your RFD or speaks. Slow down for tags and analysis.

Other stuff - Judging is fun only when y'all are having fun! I'll shake your hand if you want. I don't really mind between Speechdrop and email chains. Please put your speech docs in .docx format and not .pdf! I have a soft spot for affs that have "justification" instead of "inherency" and/or "harms," plus affs with "significance" make me chuckle. I try to give as much feedback as I can, but this is limited if it's a paper ballot tourney :( [paper ballots are dogwater]. Do forensics next semester!!! (and try at least one Congress tournament!)

I'm excited to judge your round!! I'm going to ask both teams if they've read this paradigm before the round starts because I'm rooting for all of you!

+ 0.2 speaker points if you correctly label your files correctly;

[Tournament School] [Division] [Round #] [Aff school and initials] vs [Neg school initials] [1AC/1NC/etc.]

Ex: BVNW Open Rd 4 SMW AB vs ONW CD 2NC

Full judging record;

9/23/23 Blue Valley Quint @ BVN - 2 rounds

9/27/24 Blue Valley Quint @ BVSW - 3 rounds

10/2/24 Olathe East ASS1 - 3 rounds

10/30/24 Olathe East ASS2 - 3 rounds

11/1/24 KCKCC - TBD rounds

bvnw 24'

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.

bvw 24

aryashah0916@gmail.com

BVSW '24

Michigan '28

rishishetty@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Conflicts: Blue Valley Southwest, Montgomery Bell Academy

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.

I'll always be the first to admit that I'm not the greatest flow. That doesn't mean that I'm a bad flow nor that I'll be totally lost in every debate, it just means that if you want me to get everything down, you can greatly increase those chances by just slowing down a little bit. This isn't because I'm inattentive or don't want to be there, but rather its because I'm not amazing at typing OR writing. Thus, the Kansan in me makes me greatly appreciate debaters who can technically out-debate their opponents at a more moderate pace.

Topicality vs K Affs

These are my favorite debates to watch/be in.

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

Inversely, 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.

Policy Affs vs Ks

Similarly to T vs K Aff, these are my favorite debates to judge and I feel the most comfortable adjudicating.

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 favorite 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, as well as other non-resolutional theory arguments.

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?

If the 2NR wins turns case but the 2AR wins uniqueness (i.e 2NR wins that recessions cause warming but the 2AR wins that recession comes now), then absent further judge instruction, I'll automatically default that the impact the 2NR won 'turns case' on is irrelevant on presumption.

Voting Record

Overall Aff/Neg: 6-8

Overall Aff vs K: 1-1

Overall Condo Bad vs Condo Good: 0-4. (I'm in hell.)

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 speak, how much you debate from the flow instead of spewing blocks, how enjoyable you are to judge, etc.

I'll probably take a long time to make a decision since I want to be as thorough in feedback as possible.

I'm honestly not opposed to universalizing SpeechDrop over email chains. It's more efficient, saves so much time, and the issue of not having docs later on is solved by just organizing a little bit.

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.

Warrants are fake; I won't reject a claim/argument because I think that it lacks grounding, but the more frivolous the grounding is, the less in depth of a response likely needed,

I think that plan text in a vacuum is true, and most rebuttals are based on misunderstandings of what it means, but if you technically win that it's bad then I'll obviously adjudicate it as such.

I'll ask for a card doc if I need it, otherwise its probably not necessary to send one. I'll only look at the chain if I'm told to in the 2NR/2AR or if I'm so utterly unable to flow you that I need it.

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."

I'm fine for callouts/ad homs if you think you can out tech your opponent. As previously mentioned, I won't stop the round unless I'm asked to.

If you're going for an ev ethics violation, you can either stop the debate or keep it going and technically defend it and I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument. If you stop the debate, I'll send it to tab.

I'm probably not watching the doc so if you catch your opponent clipping you have to stop the round and show me a recording. If you don't stop the round, I'm not doing anything.

My debate thoughts are largely shaped by Ryan McFarland, Dr. Allie Chase, Kurt Fifelski, Brian Box, Sahil Jain, and Ishan Sharma.

If any of this is unclear, just email me and I'm glad to answer questions.

email: prateek.singh06@outlook.com

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

email: rmsmith03@bluevalleyk12.net

blue valley north '25

please add me to the chain Iman.suleman1011@gmail.com

novice debate is so awesome and I am happy that I get to judge!

Remember that the goal is to have fun and get better!

Things that will make me happy!

- good flowing

- being nice

- nice speech docs

- Final speeches off paper

- good cross x

Things that will make me sad :(

- not flowing

- not trying

- being mean

- reading into your computer for the full speech.

Please feel free to ask any questions after the debate!

fourth year debater at blue valley high

lies >> truth

add me to the email chain- @nikoo.jang@gmail.com

I used to debate back in high school for 3 years but I am not debating in college. Since I probably have no idea on what the current policy topic is about, it is in your best interest to treat me similar to a lay judge and I'll do my best to follow along.

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 (I hate Gish Gallop)

My rule of thumb in terms of filling out the ballot:

-Aff should defend all the arguments that were brought up by the Neg

-The Neg needs to win one argument against the Aff for the W (You may go for just one thing or everything in the 2NR)

Remember that debate is also about persuasion. Spam reading a bunch of cards with no context and overviews will make it harder to win my ballot.

My name is Kyle Toal and I am a junior at BVN.

Blue Valley West '24

he/him

email chain - hienjoshuatran@gmail.com

General

• I'm not familiar with this topic at all - please don't throw a bunch of jargon at me
• I didn't debate fast in high school but I'll do my best to keep up - please signpost clearly and slow down during rebuttals otherwise I'm not going to be able to flow it
• tech>truth

DA/CP

I need these to be specific, competitive, and have actual solvency advocates. If I don't think a counterplan is competitive enough I'm not even going to evaluate it unless the aff drops it. Give me a good link chain and I'll take any impact you wanna run.

K

If you're going to run a K please assume I'm unfamiliar with the lit that you're reading - please please please explain the links to the aff really well as well as your impacts

T

I usually default to reasonability but if you can make it very very case specific I'm willing to vote on it

F/W

impacts impacts impacts for framework - I need to know how voting for you is going to affect this round