BVSW '26

rohandebate2008@gmail.com

1. EXTENDING CARDS---Extending cards doesn't just mean repeating the tag, but actually extending and repeating important parts in the BODY of the card.
2. INSTRUCTION---In the later rebuttals, give me a clear, concise path as to why I should vote for you. Impact calculus is especially good in novice debates.
3. Please try to use your whole speech time.

suditichalla@gmail.com

add me to the email chain

she/her

bvn ’24 – northwestern ’28 (not debating)

feel free to ask me any questions!

Paradigm

I’m currently a second-year debater and have been to a few tournaments. I haven’t judged much so keep it slow. Please explain all arguments, tell a story, and do overviews (explain overall arguments), and if you can without running out of time, under-views (explain cards). Flow the debate (maybe share a flow with your partner to help)! It’ll help you organize and clash with the opposing team's arguments, and help you a lot in rebuttals (which should be mainly off of flow) to recognize what arguments you’ve made, what they’ve made against it (or if they’ve dropped arguments).

I like to do speechdrop.net, but my email for an email chain is TFatimah@bluevalleyk12.net

I’ll take tech over truth. I’m trying to judge how well of a debater you are compared to whether or not you have the argument I agree with. You still need to explain and be convincing though.

5. Any general advice for the debaters

1. Be kind and friendly with the other team, and be respectful and professional. Don’t be harsh, racist, or prideful.

2. Give a roadmap for every speech.

3. Make your speech readable when you speech drop/email it.

4. Don’t cheat by stealing prep time or cutting cards. Time your speeches. For prep time, sometimes people steal prep accidentally, so for reference, whenever a timer is not running you can’t prep. So no talking to your partner, typing things up, etc between speeches when the other team or you are sending your speech.

5. Again, Flow.

6. Make eye contact when reading, don’t just read off, be fun and tell a story with your voice! Emphasize certain words when speaking, speak boldly, and when debating you should be acting a bit.

1. Topicality

For me to vote on it, make it convincing that the aff violates topicality. do it with teams you actually believe are not topical. Be sure to have all parts of the T ( definition, violation, standards, voter). Topicality is an a priori issue, so aff team, don’t drop it or it’s an automatic win to the negative.

2. Counterplans

Have a plan text. Make sure it’s competitive with the negative team. Explain it, explain the net benefit Just a tip for the aff, you should run perms with the counterplan.

3. Disadvantages

Please run a CP with the DA. like all arguments I’ve mentioned before, explain it and its connection to the aff, and its impact of course.

4. Kritiks

Explain them really well, help everyone in the round understand what it is and explain how they apply to the aff specifically.

I am a fourth-year debater from Paola High School.

As far as arguments go you can run almost anything. I'm not fond of Ks. I love off-case arguments but for me, clash is a big part of the debate so try to get some on-case in there too. Stock issues are important, but on case is too.

Please be kind to one another and have fun, your novice year is to have fun and learn.

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.

BVSW '26

he/him

add me to the email chain - braydenpresley30@gmail.com

"The important thing is that your teammates have to know you're pulling for them and you really want them to be successful." - Kobe Bryant

My name is Lachlan Smith (he/him) and I am in my third year of debate at Shawnee Mission West. I've done both KDC/DCI/Nat Circuit debate, so I'm good with pretty much anything. However, in a novice round, I would much prefer substantive policymaking debate over trying to win on more technical aspects.

Feel free to ask me any questions about this paradigm/my judging before round!

Put me in the email chain if you have one: lach.smithsmwdebate@gmail.com or give me the SpeechDrop code. Email chains are preferred if, and only if, you have experience with them. If you do not have a dedicated debate or personal email, don't use an email chain! SpeechDrop works perfectly fine :)

(Also feel free to email that email address with any questions post-round or in general. I'm generally quick to respond and learning is important! Please ask anything.)

I'll be flowing on my computer. Don't be scared if you don't see me taking notes. I am, don't worry.

I consider myself a pretty bland policy judge.

TLDR: Explain your arguments, be nice, do good impact comparison, tell me what it means to implement the Affirmative or any Neg advocacies, somewhere between policymaker and tabula rasa

My #1 controversial debate take is that a judge's paradigm shouldn't decide what you run. RUN WHAT YOU KNOW AND WANT TO RUN! You'll be a much better communicator and debater if you have passion for or knowledge of what you're talking about. I've gotten judges to vote for T even when they say they hate it in their paradigm. Paradigms aren't an end-all-be-all. Running arguments you have no care for makes the round worse for everyone, even judges. We want to have fun way just as much as you do. I love good CPs and T, but am intrigued by almost every argument in debate.

Things I find annoying (don't do these):

- Being unkind/dismissive. This is high school debate. It's not that serious. I promise. Don't make personal attacks.

- Wasting time with speech drop, email, or internet-related tech issues; have a flash drive (with a USB C/USB A adapter) ready as a backup and use it the second your initial strategy doesn't work. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Being overly aggressive during cross ex. Save the arguments for the speeches. There's a clear distinction between controlling/staying on track in cross ex and talking over people. Don't be escalatory.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here? I probably won't vote on an argument if it's super obscure. If you're Negative and you run a weird disad I'll require minimal answers from the affirmative. I believe in a genuine discussion of the plan, especially in novice debates.

- Speeches that are nothing but evidence after the 1NC - I want to hear your analysis. Analytics are great, even outside of rebuttal speeches. (Good time to mention that I try not to read the Doc you send unless I have to. Make sure that I can understand you.)

Things I Love (Do These):

• Talking with other teams before and after the round. Debate is about making friends! (not really but it's a good side benefit) I don't want to judge a hostile round. Please don't make me!

• In-depth case debate from the Negative. I want to hear about Solvency!

• Impact calc! Magnitude, Probability, and Timeframe. Tell me what I’m voting to avoid! (But also know I don’t think you need to get stuck in the big “we stop nuclear war first” debate. I want to know what the plan does first and foremost.)

• Splitting the block. Use the 2NC and 1NR to cover 13 minutes of neg arguments. The 1NR shouldn't just be restating the 2NC.

• Strong debates that move beyond simply reading cards after the 1ac and 1nc

• Referencing the 1AC in speeches throughout the round

• Extending arguments

• Giving me reasons to vote for your team in the rebuttals! Write my ballot for me.

• Good cross ex questions. Also, reference it in your speeches

• Having fun! Debate should be educational and inclusive for all. Don't make me add anything here.

• Leaning into off-case arguments. The Negative team can choose what the debate is about just as much as the Affirmative can, and these arguments often are really important in comparison in the rebuttals. Defend your disadvantage, argue for your counterplan, and explain topicality!

Thoughts on Specific Args that can sometimes be uncertain from judge to judge

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth

Counterplans - I am a counterplan enthusiast. I'm most comfortable with Actor and Advantage Counterplans, but am open to voting on PICs/Process CPs. Make sure the 2nr has good impact framing with what the counterplan can resolve. I think that Affs can benefit a lot from good solvency deficits to the counterplan. I also think that a 2NR on the counterplan should have at least some arguments against the case.

T - also a love of mine. Make sure the violation is clear and that you answer the other sides arguments! I default competing interps unless I believe that the t interp is super far out there (e.g. t-cessation on the water topic).

K - fan, but not the most familiar. I don't think that Affs can no link most kritiks, but I'll judge all aspects of the debate through who wins that on the flow. 2nr explanations of what the ballot/me voting Neg does are the best (read that as explaining how you resolve the links). I'm most familiar with security and cap/neolib. I mostly go for framework as a method of alt solvency but am open to whatever working of the alt you propose. Winning 2NRs must explain how whatever you go for resolves the link/solves.

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.