Junior at BV North with 3 years of policy experience,

Generally favor a well-thought-out and lively debate

Emphasis & clarity > speed

Be certain about the rules of debate because if you throw "They did xyz and that's abusive/unfair/against the rules." you better be sure they are actually violating a rule, I am not here to listen to you list out all the rules they're breaking that don't exist.

Keep organized, be kind, and have fun :)

Here’s my email if there’s a chain piperdoyle25@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/they/he

currently a DCI debater for Olathe east (3 years)

I like to think I know enough about the topic because I’m currently debating in it but if you pull out an aff about some random subsect of block chain patents or something maybe explain it a bit

currently am an almost 100% k debater this year but was completely policy the 2 years ago

For Novices - just have fun - im legit just here to render a decision and give yall as much helpful feedback as possible

Speed - Any speed is fine if clarity matches it, please slow down a bit for analytics/off the flow because I'm less likely to catch them. Blatant refusal to slow down if your opponent asks you to based of a ability reason will not reflect well for you on the ballot, whether that be speaks or an auto loss depends on the amount of abuse. debate should be an activity welcome to everyone no matter their ability.

Very long TLDR- run what you’re comfortable with, I’ll consider almost anything. Anything said/ran that is racist/sexist/homophobic ect results in an auto loss, yall should know better. tech>truth. analytics should be your friend, not everything needs a card if its intuitive.I’m most likely judging in the novice pool so have fun, it’s not that deep, and for gods sake be nice to each other.

judge instruction is good in the 2ar/nr, tell me why I'm voting for you with warrants to contextualize why a handful of dropped args matter even if your loosing on other places on the flow. I shouldn't have to dig back into the 1ar to find the arguments and warrants you are referencing. evidence spins are cool, I wont quality check unless told to.

Speaks-Lets be honest, they're arbitrary.

T

I'll admit I’m not the biggest T debater but I know enough. I prefer competing interpretations but will default to reasonability if the other team drops it. If you don’t extend impacts about why your interp is better I will not vote on it, and I believe fairness is not an impact but an internal link.

DA

Hard to go wrong with them. Just have a good link to the aff, contextualize the impact, and make sure your uniqueness is up to date. Not a lot to say here. the more creative you get with it the better.

CP

there should be some reason that the counter plan is better than the aff. Doesn’t necessarily have to be a da as the net benefit but the counter plan should solve for the aff (or part of the aff if you explain how the sq solves for the rest/doesn't need to be solved ect.) and do something extra, or avoid the da.

for condo - I’ll vote either way, but condo is normally good. If they have 1-2 conditional advocacies and you’re treating them like they just destroyed debate for you I’m gonna be skeptical. Have standards and impacts if you’re going for it, but I don’t think dispo solves for just about any level of abuse

K

K Debate >>> I love it, but as a standard, I would prefer a good CP DA debate you're more comfortable with.

The literature I’m either most familiar with/have run/or have at least read up on are racial cap, (mlm) cap, disability, queer/trans theory, afropess, black rage, util, improper reproduction, setcol, imperialism, and fem.

That being said if you’re reading something out of my radar like psychoanalysis I will probably need more explanation while you’re running it but don’t let that stop you if you know your lit!! always down to learn more

I don’t think the neg needs an alt to win if they’re winning the link and the fw debate, and a linear da with the link and the impact of the k being shaped to a independent da to the aff WITH fw is a kill shot in my mind. that being sad don't be afraid to go fot the alt

Fw

To win the fw page for me you either have to win your interp and/or an impact turn to their interp, but always at least extend your interp and ROB/J. Fairness is an internal link not an impact in my eyes, but if you want to go for it pls pls pls impact it out well, don’t just stand there saying debate is a game so fairness is key - why do I care. In a policy round the aff should be able to justify its reps/epistemology, and if they can’t, it makes me more likely to vote on the k if the aff can’t even tell me it’s epistemology good for the space/learning/policy/ect. Debate is a game with research at its core. But hey tech over truth man if u win debate is just a game then ig it’s just a game. Debate shapes subjectivity, there’s too much of an investment in this activity for it to not change and shape us even a little bit. But again if you win it doesn’t on the flow then it doesn’t.

Plan affs

the plan should be able to solve for its impacts. Diversify your impacts in the 1ac for a cleaner 2ar collapse. I've ran mostly soft left affs but am no stranger to the classic big stick nuc war affs. Explain to me how the aff plan not passing is worse than triggering the da for example.

Case

case turns or basically a da on the case page are a great move in my eyes, it gives you a possible well warranted 2nr out that's basically a da. the aff tends to undercover it making it light work. I don't think you need case in the 2nr is you explain how the off case o/w and turns case

K aff

will probably never judge these but I love them when they're ran well, so they’re getting a section :)

I've ran improper reproduction (gumbs), ballroom, and disability pess on fiscal redistribution and zines, and trans utopias on IP

if your aff has a performative aspect in the 1ac, dont be afraid to use it as offense in later speeches. a lot of teams tend to underutilize the poetics from the 1ac that ends up being like half of the speech.

you should at least have a link to the resolution even if it’s just hating on it, if not ill be much more lenient to the clash impact/res stasis point for the neg on fw.

the aff should be able to resolve some of its impacts, either in round or out of round. Which also means that if there isn’t a good thought out answer to presumption and there’s nothing much on any other flow I’ll vote on it.

k affs are rarely, if ever, just a personal narrative, it’s a test of methodologies. That being said the, neg should be using time on the case flow to point out flaws in the method, aka actually engaging with the aff

k aff v fw

these are the debates I know the most about since they’re what most of mine have come down to

I think the aff has the ability to win on a da or a good and warranted case turn (yes case can o/w fw ) with a reasonable counter interp. I tend to not be convinced from "only our aff" CI especially with a warranted out clash standard from the neg. I would prefer the aff to go for the CI with a da as a net benefit because the neg tends to under cover it in these debates.

the neg should be critiquing the model of debate the affirmative proposes. Teams that have clearly put thought into their fw blocks and not just had them passed down through the team back files create much better debates. the more you actually understand the cross applications of the aff onto fw the more impressive that fw 2nr will be. There’s more impacts than just fairness and clash and if you branch out from those there's a good chance the aff wont be able to use their masterfile blocks like usual.

kvk

these ive had less and im usually the negative in these scenerios but still feel confident evaluating since ive been on either side of them.

take what I said on the k aff part of the paradigm and apply it here. With these debates if there isn’t a good link and a root cause claim you’re in a hard spot.

I don't know why more Neg teams aren't putting a no perms in kvk debates standard on fw. The goal of kvk debates in theory should be comparing strategies, not seeing how many of them could possibly be compatible. It works well with an epistomology fw.

over all if you do an in depth link, root cause, impact, and of course fw debate ill be rocking with it.

i will say in these debates the theory of power and impact debate seen to get brushed under the rug and diluted. for example if both the teams have a racial cap theory of power then there should be a ton of explanation devoted to differencing your impacts and how you view the dismantling top as a whole.

BVW '25

she/her

email chain: sjdebate5@gmail.com

2nd year Debater at Olathe North. You can see that I'm a moderately competent KDC debater based on my record from this year and a severely incompetent DCI debater based on my record in this tournament. I'm a new judge so you might want to keep that in mind. If you want to add me to an email chain my email is longe4424@gmail.com. I'll join a SpeechDrop too.

Since I do KDC I evaluate a debater to an extent on how confident they are and how much I think they know what they are saying throughout the speeches (I think that I can see this a lot in cross-ex so I will pay special attention there although I don't flow it).

I can handle speed as long as you're clear, but keep in mind that I don't spread personally and the only way I will 100% pick up on all of your arguments is if you use the Open-style speed I'm used to.

As for specific arguments, I am tech over truth. I think that the neg needs to win an off-case position to win in most cases. I read policy arguments and I love case debate as a result but I still feel comfortable with Ks and have spent time responding to them.

she/her, you can call me caydence, or cay, or judge, or whatever you feel comfortable with. if you want to shake my hand, just ask :)

email: caydencemcgory08@gmail.com or 755cem14@students.olatheschools.com

yes i want the speech drop code. if you're gonna do email chain, that's fine but you'll have to walk me through it because i've never debated with it. you can also use the first email if you have any questions or need anything at all! would love to help!

for context:

i'm a 3rd year olathe east debater — i'm mostly a policy debater and have the most experience in running stock issues / generic stuff. i have dabbled in K work (fem ir / dis pess / cap) and theory (vagueness / no new in the 2 type stuff) but i'm not an expert or anything. i understand lit and have never been afraid to interact with it after it's explained to me. i'm a fan of fem stuff and i've so far never debated a year without running it, i think representing yourself in your case makes debate infinitely more fun. highly recommend! random things about me include: i'm an avid swiftie (fit a taylor reference in your speech and i may be inclined to bump your speaks), i love to read (ask me for book recommendations/recommend me your favorite book and i will love you forever), and i want to be a history teacher when i grow up :)

tldr

i recommend reading the rest of this, but if you're in a rush, here's the gist: run whatever you want. i'll pretty much vote on anything, but there are some arguments you'll need to hold my hand through. i lean truth over tech subconsciously but if you can defend your liar tech well enough, you can still get the ballot. also if there is no callout/response to your liar tech you will still get the ballot. you can spread if, and only if, i have access to the doc - this includes your rebuttals (for what is typed out). i have partial hearing loss and will not be able to understand everything you say. also, please please do not drop args or make new args in the negative block!!!! in most cases, my face will tell you everything you need to know about how i feel about your speech. most important thing is to have fun and be kind ❤️ specific args below, forensics at the very bottom

topicality

i myself have run topicality well, but i've also run topicality pretty poorly. i can tell the difference. if you don't have voters or standards then i'll probably stop flowing T after the 1NC. however, a well-run T round is fun to judge, so go for it, but i probably won't factor it into my RFD if i think it's too outlandish or unreasonable. for example, i am likely not your "the" judge, but i am good with "expand" or "substantial" etc. also know that i am also debating under the topic, so i have a good idea of what is and is not topical!

it is also something to note that i have been an open debater pretty much my entire debate career, so topicality is not something i traditionally vote on if i don't think there is clear abuse in the round. if you run weird T on a novice caselist AFF, you aren't going to get my vote there. spend some time on T if you really believe it's unfair/abusive.

Ks

if you are a novice and don't already know what a K is, don't worry about it. ask an advanced debater later and focus on what you do know in this round!

there are Ks i understand and there are Ks i don't understand. it's about as simple as that. i will, and have, voted on the K, but to be honest, i'm probably not the judge for you. i actually really like and enjoy K debates and think they can be interesting when everyone knows what's going on, but chances are if i'm your judge and you're running a K, neither you nor i know what you're talking about. if you want to run a K, go for it, i know enough to have a general idea, but K debates are only fun to be in and to judge when the team running the K is prepared to explain it; i will not vote for the K just because the other team is confused.

disadvantages

run them. always. they can be a net benefit to your CP/K or they can not. i've seen both, and i don't really care. most judges want the DA to be a net benefit but debates end up more fun without it imo. as long as it makes some sort of sense and isn't abusive in some way, i'll vote on them.

CPs

listen, i ran PICs my freshman year, so i understand the appeal of them, but i despise judging PIC rounds. it's gotta be a fantastic PIC for me to vote on it. in general, CPs are a weird territory for me because i don't have a lot of experience with them. chances are, i don't know what your advantage CP does and i definitely don't know what's going on with any sort of process CP. explain it to me like i'm 5, and you'll be okay, but this is a weird inexperience i have. any normal CPs are fine. do what you want w/ them -- there are a lot of ways to win with a CP on my ballot tbh. any neg case should include a CP for offense purposes, i'm just a little weird with understanding nonobvious ones

theory

if you're a novice and don't know what this is, don't worry about it. ask an advanced debater some other time :)

i'm pretty sympathetic with condo bad and will likely default that way. i sometimes struggle to wrap my head around 1 CP, you don't need 4. however, i'm not saying i can't be convinced otherwise. just have yet to. you'll have to do work here. also i probably won't judge kick. run what you think what will win, don't waste my time if you don't want me to evaluate it on my ballot by the end. unless something is dropped by both teams, it'll be on my flow and will therefore be apart of my eval.

other theory is probably fine but tbh i'm probably not the judge for it if there's not clear abuse in the round. i've seen condo/disclosure/speed/vagueness type stuff but nothing else. just something to keep in mind. do what you want here for the most part. i'm open and will prob be able to understand you if you walk me through it.

miscellaneous

im an avid hater of new arguments in the negative block. in novice rounds, i will not evaluate them -- they won't even touch my flow. but in JV or higher, i will evaluate them until the affirmative tells me not to (affirmative, please tell me not to!!!) and will only continue to evaluate them after that if neg can defend that they're not abusive. aggressive cross-ex is cool until it's not and i ask that you please be mindful of the way you speak to others here. i feel like this goes without saying, but i will NOT tolerate abuse in any form and it will cost you the ballot and earn you the automatic lowest speaking points i can give you. if it's bad enough, i am not afraid to seek out a coach. debate is a game (for the most part...a good team can convince me otherwise), don't make it unsafe.

forensics

i don't actually recall ever looking at paradigms for forensics because i'm not really sure how you can adjust to me here ???? in the case of speech & interp events, i do need your TW: if your piece is heavy on substance abuse, specifically but not limited to alcoholism, let your coach know ASAP that i will be unable to judge your round. otherwise, do your pieces as intended! i have a very expressive face and you will likely know what i think about your interp choices before you even get the ballot back bc of it — i hope this helps???? have fun, that's what forensics is for !!!!

if i am your LD, PFD, or congress judge i am sure that something has gone terribly wrong as i know very, very little about any of those events. refer to my policy paradigm is my best recommendation....? i will do my best, but please give me some grace! i am trying!

if you have any other questions, ask me before round, and once again feel free to email me if you have questions after round! best of luck!

bvn 26'

4-year Debater at BVN

I will vote on any argument in the round if you can explain it well and tell me effectively why it should be something. I vote for

Don't just tell me that your opponent's arguments are wrong or that yours are better explain to me why that is.

I am a debater @BVN, and debate should be competitive and fun. I know about yalls novice packet.

Personal Preference: I don't like debates that have 0 clashes and involve unclearly reading a document onto the screen. I care more about you making actual arguments. I will vote for any argument you win. Read as fast as you want. I don't care, but be clear.

• Da's are goated; please don't drop link turns or no links. You could very well lose the debate.
• Turns are once again goated; it creates a clash full debate!
• Cps.I don't hate them, nor do I love them; go for them if you want.
• K's. I like them. Creates fun debate, imo.
• Topicality. Ehh I don't love it, but fine judging it. But it is a voter issue
• Impact defense is good enough for me, as long as you prove impact can't happen throughout the debate.No link can be even better.
• Unfortunately, though, the debate isn't about me. Run what y'all want. I will vote tech over truth, but please, I beg y'all. Use your flow to answer the other team's arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish. Please have a clash, guys.
• If you don't want to debate my preferences, that is fine.

CX

• CX is huge for me, y'all.
• Some of the most impactful parts of the debate. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy that you can go for in future speeches. I flow CX (every time you get an argument in, I put a mark next to your name).

Integrity

• Don't steal prep. I will call you out on it. I will not be happy if you all do it more than once.
• Don't clip cards. It's a really big issue.
• Be respectful to each other.

Elle Saale (She/Her)---Olathe North High School

I would like to be on the email chain/speechdrop.

saalenotsale@gmail.com

**Tell me who your favorite musician is before the round starts so I know you read the paradigm! :)

**I am a third-year debater at Olathe North. I have debated in literally every division (Novice, JV, Open, Varsity) so I am comfortable with whatever speed you do in front of me as long as you're legible.

**Heavy on truth over tech. Refrain from reading a K in front of me, I'm unfamiliar with K debate and likely won't be voting on it.

**I really like topicality but if you want to go for T I need well-warranted explanations for why your model of debate is good and theirs is bad, not just debating the actual definitions. Topicality is about models.

**Please, please, please don't just read cards straight down. Extend the previous evidence you've read and tell me why it's good and true. The warranted analysis will always be a better debate than just reading cards at me. Signposting is very important, please let me know when you are moving from one argument to the next. I flow straight down so I must know what sheet I should be flowing on.

**Affirmative team, PLEASE use your 1AC! The 1AC should have answers to most case arguments that the negative could read. I am cool with reading cards on case in the 2AC but you NEED to use your 1AC to your advantage, I promise you that it's good. Extending args from the 1AC is the key to my heart (good speaker ranks!).

**PLEASE keep track of your own prep and speech times. I will try and time as well but I am fallible. I am okay with phone timers.

**DON'T BE STUPID. DON'T BE DISRESPECTFUL. We are all here because we like debate, don't be a jerk to the other team. If I feel like you are being disrespectful or bigoted, I will stop the round and discuss it with your coach. Don't make me do that. I know everyone in this district.

If you have any questions for me, please ask them before the round.

Happy debating!

Email for Email chain/speechdrop :

141ms20@students.olatheschools.com

Speed is ok, but slow down on your taglines and the very least. Im also very much truth > tech.

T is good but please explain why their definition should not be accepted and not just if your definition is better.

I haven't run into much K debate, therefore if you want me to vote on a K you need to explain it VERY thoroughly

When citing cards, dont read just the author and move on, explain what you're citing and how it applies. Also, don't ditch cards after they're read, please bring them back up and explain why they're important.

otherwise, will vote on pretty much anything as long as its explained well

Be respectful.

I like to hear the explanation of arguments and not just read of a screen.

I also love making eye contact with the speaker because it tells me you are confident in what you are saying.

NEVER FORGET IMPACT CALC!!

Off Case: I will vote on anything as long as you link it and explain it well. I am not against any off case position!

CX:This is my favorite part of debates. Use all the time and ask relevant questions. This is a ticket to having the upper hand in the debate.

Good luck and have fun!