they/them

Email chain or speechdrop both work! tarynday55@gmail.com

I've done policy debate for 4 years and LD for 3 years at Shawnee Mission Northwest

If you are using your phone to time and have a fun ringtone I will be happy! This means nothing except it will bring me joy no boost in speaks or anything

I won't accept any homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, etc. comments or arguments.

Don't be outright rude, this will make my heart go

tl;dr--

-I'll pretty much listen to any type of argument but like DA/CP combos and one off Ks.

-I don't mind speed and/or spreading but just make sure you're clear and slow down for tags/analytics. Although this doesn't really matter since I'm probably judging novices.

-don't say your opponent dropped an argument when they didn't.

-in your last rebuttals tell me why you should win

-whatever type of CX you want is fine

-roadmaps!

-please flow, I see way too many debaters not flow and it makes me sad

T--

I like T and will vote on it but make sure to tell me why I'm voting on it. Running T on a case that is clearly topical is something you should do at your own risk as it will take a lot for me to vote on it. It will subsequently not take a lot for me to vote on a case that is clearly not topical. You need an interpretation and to extend it, a violation, standards, and voters, if you don't have those parts, I will not vote on T.

DAs--

I like DAs and think they are underrated in debate. I <3 DAs with specific links to the aff plan but generic links are okay too as almost all DAs are non-unique this year. Always always when you are running a DA tell me why the impact of the DA outweighs the impact of the aff. It's not a DA if you don't have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If the other team points out your DA doesn't have those parts and explains why that matters, I will not vote on it. If you are aff, I love to see link/impact turns. Defense arguments are fine and have their place but I'm way more likely to vote aff if you have some offense on the DA.

CPs--

For me, CPs should do a two things 1) not link to any DA you are running (unless it's condo of course) 2) provide a net benefit to the aff. A third thing that will also make me happy is if your CP is mutually exclusive. That way I don't have to sit through a perm debate. If your CP does neither of those two things I will probably vote for aff on a perm as there's no compelling reason to vote neg.

Ks--

I enjoy Ks if they are done well. I am someone who runs a policy aff but loved running one off Ks on neg. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand it. If you misrepresent a K I am familiar with (liberal militarism, FEM IR, imperialism, capitalism, etc.) I will make a frowny face. I will vote on Ks, you just have to make sure you are extending links and impacts. These are often underrated. If you are aff against a K you should always weigh the impacts of the aff vs the alt. In turn, if you want to win on a K, make sure to tell me why either you win on weighing the impact of the aff vs the alt or give me framing to judge the debate in a different way. I don't think you need an alt to win on a K, just give me a compelling reason why you don't need one.

Overall, this is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, let's keep it that way.

Feel free to ask questions! :)

Overview:

My name is Andrew Fewins and I am an ex KDC debater who debater thorough-out high school and am from Shawnee Mission Northwest. I am a flow judge, so I tie the vote less to your speaking skills and more to the argumentation presented in the round. It's more important to get 4th speaker and win than get 1st speaker and lose.

Argumentation:

I was a stock debater in high school and am a primarily stock judge. Will prefer stock issues over theory argumentation. Not saying running a K or leaning heavily into topicality will result in an immediate loss just that policy in the round for me is more convincing.

Topicality is encouraged as a last resort check on un-topical affirmatives.

K's if they are the last thing on the flow will still win a round for a team.

Discloser argumentation for me is a no go. As someone whose team did not have a wiki and who personally did not disclose until speech was shared for the 1AC I feel no sympathy if the team did not disclose before hand. It is your job as a debater to adjust on the fly and going it without copious amount of prep before hand all the better.

K affirmative's will be a quick ballot for the neg if a single solid policy issue is presented.

Speed:

Speed: spreading is okay as long as I have your evidence and signposting is done well. It is necessary to discernible language when presenting if you want arguments to go on my flow.

Fairness and Abuse:

Open cross-x or alternative speaker order needs to be okayed before the start of the round. Manipulation of the round is seen as major violation of fairness and will result in immediate vote for the other team. If a team commits and Ad Homonym fallacy you will get one warning. If it occurs a second time it will be an immediate vote against the team that commits the fallacy. Also cross-x should be civilized and focused around questioning your opponent. It should not contain monologues by the questioning team or be a shouting match.

As an open debater, I get how important it is to win the round and try to vote on argumentation issues and not punish you harshly for minor errors or missteps. Have fun and good luck.

Hopefully, this paradigm has been useful, and I look forward to judging you in the round.

Hi! I am Ravnoor and I'm a debater at SMNW. I have been debating for 4 years, so I know quite a bit about policy debate. Therefore, I am quite familiar with the resolution and arguments run this year. Do not be afraid to run different types of arguments, but do make sure you don't kick them halfway through. Please make sure you are respectful while you are in the room. If you are disrespectful in any sort of way, you will be losing speaker points, and there's a solid chance I will vote against the disrespectful team. Please make sure your arguments are listed clearly, for I would like to be in your speechdrop.

Neg-

I love on case clash, so it'd be nice if you have some. 

T-

I'm a fan of T. If the aff isn't topical or can't prove themselves topical, T goes to the negative team.

CP-

Make sure if you're running a CP, you clearly differentiate the Aff plan and the CP. If your CP sounds more like the aff plan than not, I might as well vote aff on perm if they run one.

Cross ex:

Please utilize your time and ask as many questions as you can, if not, at least take the time as an advantage to further clarify your case. Also, be respectful!

K-

I'm personally not a huge fan of Ks but I will not vote against it if run carefully.

Speed-

Spreading is not a huge issue if I have your evidence and if you are emphasizing your arguments clearly.

Flow-

Make sure you are flowing as a debater in the round, it will help you keep track of arguments. I will be flowing and will be voting on flow.

Impact Calc-

I love impact calc and if you go ahead with it. that's a plus.

Overall, make sure to be respectful in the round and have fun!

Please add me to the email chain: tristenskyenewell@gmail.com

I have experience debating at the open and varsity levels. I have judged before. I love clash and rounds where each side is fully engaged. Most importantly I want everybody to have fun!

Road Map before the speech would be really nice!

No previous knowledge of this topic but I debated for 3 years and have done policy and pfd.

I think the NEG can win in the NEG block so make a block so good that you pummel them. You can split the block but let me know before the speech. I think a good neg block splits up off and on. Make me convinced that the aff will be the end all and will do nothing. I'll take almost everything on the neg if you make it into a good argument. A CP and DA combo is the sweet spot personally but all arguments are game. DA- for DA I have really low standards it doesn't have to be unique but I'll listen to a non-unique argument. However, the DA has to link if there is no link there is no reason for you to argue the DA. For DA v ADV I like Impact calc and that will probably sway my decision a lot. IMPACT CALC is KING! CP -any CP is cool but it must be noted that a States CP is not something I value highly. If you a choosing a CP and you don't have to go state you don't have to, do something else more fun. K/Theory- probably won't see this in Novice too much but any of this is okay you have to argue it correctly and not just say blank theory and expect that to be an argument.

For aff, I like inherency, plan, solvency, adv 1, adv 2 but any order works as long as you have main parts. 1A should be down to a tee and if theirs open in the round 1A should do the majority of talking in cross-ex because 1A has the easiest job. I think the round can be lost in cross-ex and cross-ex is binding. But I also think the round can be won in the 2A. Aim for an amazing 2A the neg can't come back from! Really make sure to cover the case because if you beat the DA but I'm convinced you don't have solvency I can't vote for you, all arguments have to be treated equally in my opinion in the 2A. The aff can't drop arguments in 2AR just because neg doesn't have another speech I will just assume you concede on that point. The 2AR has to tie a neat bow on everything. I like being told very clearly why I should vote one way or another don't leave it up for my interpretation tell me how to think. The aff also can't lose their offense along the way, be defensive and offensive, I want to be reminded of why your plan is so amazing that the world desperately needs it.

Any morally poor talk like racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will result in a vote against that team, and poor speaks. Debate isn't an excuse to be a bad person. Kindness in cross-ex is important, let the person finish, if they're wasting time interrupt them but don't ask a question and then not let them answer that's rude. Overall all argumentation goes, truth over tech, and kindness, please. Also, I'll give extra speaks if you get bippity boppity boo into a speech.

I am a two year debater with a decent understanding of most arguments; however I may not know some of the more rare speech types so you may need to walk me through some of that.

I only have three restrictions for what i am not okay with. One, don't try and appeal to emotion. While yes you can try to tug my heart strings, do not be surprised if I ignore it and only looks at the facts of the situation. Two, Be careful what you say in the 2AR. Make sure if you are talking about the neg's case do not misquote them and intentionally straw-man them in the final round. While I won't vote on this alone, it will put a bad taste in my mouth when deciding my ballot. Three, don't go too fast. Quick talking is fine but spreading is not.

A tad about me, I am a debater who loves logical reason and a clear link to value. However I will vote on whether or not you can defend your values value. As a neg I don't typically run cp; however, run one if you want but make sure you stand on your own.

Paflas

I'm open for anything to be run in the round with the exception of Kritiks, as they can get out of hand. If it is run poorly I will not vote on it. I don't have any preference on Aff or Neg so that will not sway how I vote in the round. I have been in debate for the past 3 years and understand how it works and what a good argument looks like and how it should be structured. When I was speaking I was the 1A, 2A, 1N, and 2N so I know what each speaker is feeling and the general structure for each of them. So that's how I judge, you can run anything but Kritik's just remember that.

About Me

My name is Luke Thomas. I am a sophomore at the University of Kansas studying mechanical engineering.

Experience:

• 1st Year Assistant Coach at St. James Academy.
• I debated 4 years at Shawnee Mission Northwest, went to state all 4 years, and was the 17th best debater in the state my senior year of high school.

Make some sort of comparison using KU basketball and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Who I am as a judge:

How I vote: Whomever has the most compelling argument that makes sense and is explained well will win. I will mainly vote on stock issues, but if an argument works, I will vote on it.

AFF should respond to all of the arguments. Perms are fun, but wouldn't recommend if you don't understand them

I will be flowing the entire round, so if you dropped something, I will know and it will affect the result of the round.

I will also have the evidence in front of me, so add me to the speechdrop

Give me a roadmap before the speech

Arguments: I like new arguments I haven't seen before or common arguments with new twists, as long as they make sense.

Favorite Argument: I really like CPs with a DA

Speed: I can follow spreading, but you have to be clear, slow down for car

I prefer Logos and Ethos over Pathos

General

Be nice, build clash, don't drop arguments

Don't misquote your opponents!!!

I am fine with you using open evidence in round, a quick google search is also a good source if you don't have any evidence.

You can respond to an argument with analytics, but unless you speak logically, you won't win the argument. Don't say that I should disregard an argument response because it was analytical. Prove how your evidence is better. Or respond with new evidence.

Cross Ex

The 1AC better know the answers to the questions asked in the first cross ex. This sets up the rest of the round, so you should know your stuff. You can't change your answer later down the line.

Cross Ex is where speaker points are won and lost. If you ask good, compelling questions that either set up a new argument or clarify something, I love it. DO NOT be rude to the other team and ask them questions like they are dumb. I hate it when people do that.

Cross Ex is a great time to clarify points and set up new arguments. Do not go up and ask them to summarize their speech (unless it's really confusing). I would rather you just say you have no questions then let the other team talk for 3 minutes straight about how amazing their arguments are.

On Case

Inherency

• The inherency argument is won with a more recent card and a better source. A combination of those two things will win the argument for the aff. If you have a card from the .gov that was written 2 days ago, that will probably win.

Solvency

• The plan does nothing without solvency. Aff can't access any of the advantages without it. If AFF loses on solvency, they lose the round. The solvency should be rock solid.

Advantages

• They better link to the plan. The links to the advantages are the best things to poke holes in.
• I love all impacts from everyone gets a puppy to prevention of human extinction.

OFF Case

Topicality: Yes, Comes first when voting

• I love it. Run it if you want to and you can make a compelling argument. Make sure you have standards and voters.
• The aff team better run a we meet or a counter def. If T is dropped, you lose no matter what.

Disadvantages: Yes

• DAs create amazing clash with the AFF and I love to see when a common DA is ran with a new twist.
• DA turns are good responses and something to look out for.

Counter Plans: Yes

• The minute a CP is ran, the burden of the NEG shifts from advocating for the squo, to advocating for the CP.
• CP vs AFF Plan
• Run the CP in conjunction with a DA, it'll make it better.
• I love CP, but they need to have case specific evidence if you want to win with one.

Kritics: No

• I hate Kritics. I will probably not vote for a kritic. There are much better arguments that create better clash that can be ran against the AFF.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy.