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.

Hello, Fellow Debaters

Overview:

I am currently a third-year KDC/Open/Varsity (I do a variety of things) debater at Shawnee Mission Northwest. I am a stock issues judge who appreciates clash both on and off case. However, I will honestly vote on pretty much anything if it is a good argument. I also respect and appreciate theory and K arguments if they are run well.

Speed:

I can handle spreading, especially if I have your evidence for reference. However, If you have essentially stopped speaking a discernable language in favor of speed I will stop flowing. Debate is first and foremost a public speaking activity in which the public speaking ability of debaters should, in my personal opinion, always be a factor in the decision of the round.

Flow:

I will flow the entire round and I will vote on the flow of the round (unless a unique scenario presents itself). I will try to flow the round as best as I can, though I cannot guarantee that all of your arguments will be noticed on the first pass especially if they are one-sentence remarks. Please help me and yourself by extending arguments throughout the round, signposting effectively, and referring back to the flow throughout the rebuttals.

Going down the rabbit hole:

This is my biggest pet peeve in debate. Going down irrelevant rabbit holes in the debate round or rapidly spawning new existential impacts with the flimsiest of links is never going to help your cause. The second you or your team (or both teams) decide to jump down the rabbit hole I will stop flowing. To prevent this I would suggest a variety of tools, flowing the round, going repeatedly back to stock issues in the rebuttals, and sticking to debating overall arguments and not individual specifics within cards.

Fairness and Abuse:

The second you decide to commit an ad hominem fallacy I will give you one warning in the round. If you or your team decides to test the waters again I will vote against you and make it clear in the RFD. I understand that debates can sometimes become charged or aggressive, but please just stick to finding the faults in the argument and not the people presenting them.

Thank you and best of luck, Will

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!

Intro: Hello, I am Owen, a 2nd-year debater at William Jewell College (Mention Jewell and I will boost your speaks). Currently, I do NPDA/NPTE debate (NPDA/NPTE is essentially policy without cards). I debated for 4 years at Shawnee Mission South (Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water Resources). I have qualified to nats in pretty much any event I am judging you in and did 3 years of TOC-level debate.

Email for the Email Chain: owenkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask all the questions about all the things before the round

Please let me know pronouns before the round (if you feel comfortable)

Last update: 9/27/23

TL;DR Paradigm:

Feelings------------X-----------------------------Dead inside

Policy---------------------------------------X------K

Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth

Conditionality good--------X----------------------Conditionality bad

Spec good------X----------------------------Spec bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Delgado 92

Desire is a productive force-X---------------------Desire is the lack

Try or die-X------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-------------------------------------------X---Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face--------X---------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer offs--------------------------------X---------More offs

Expressive--------------------------------------X---D. Heidt

Alt double bind------------------------------------------X-literally any other arg

Of course, theory/T is a priori---X--------------------------------Justify it

AT: ---X----------------------------------------------------- A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

Thoughts:

Disclosure is good - clipping is cheating - debate is a game, albeit with educational benefits, don't steal prep - I will call you out on it - flashing/sending the email isn't prep as long as you stop prepping - A dropped argument is a true argument - make sure to flow, even if you aren't good at it, it can only help you, and every time you do it you'll get better - paste your analytics into the doc if you have them typed up, leads to better debates that everyone gets more out of - go as fast as you want - if a CP or K alt is in the 2NR presumption flips aff? (this is very much up for debate)

- Being Racist/Sexist/Homophobic/Abelist/any other form of hate toward the other team, the 1st time I call you out and tank your speaks (unless it's egregious), 2nd time I vote you down, and we spend the rest of the round talking about why what you did was problematic. Debate should be a space where everyone feels safe.

- Please email me about my RFD's/questions/comments, as well as if I give an oral RFD (if I am allowed); feel free to ask questions about the decision after I am done

Judging Style: debate however you feel is best

Speaker Points: Clarity (especially in online debate) and smart args make your speakers rise; the opposite makes them sink. I will not hesitate to clear you. Clipping = 0 + L (1 warning).

Affs: Do whatever; I always read soft-left affs in HS, and K affs in college, and I am very much a marxist, which structures the way I think about pretty much everything. Not to say don't read your heg/econ aff, I think I can fairly judge it.

K-Affs:

• Aff vs FW - I view this as simply a question of models, the better job you do spelling out how your model looks for debate if I vote aff (or otherwise what voting aff does) the higher your chance of winning. Question I find myself asking (and think aff teams should make this arg more) - what edu does the topic generate and is that edu good when framed thru the lens of the aff?
• K v K - love this debate, do it, people don't do this enough. No strong thoughts about perms in a K v K debate.

Case: Debate case; it'll boost your speaks and help you

DAs: They are fine; I love a good politics debate

CPs: Any CP is fine until proven otherwise. Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo. As with T debates, extend your interp, don’t drop the other team's interp; you need offensive reasons and defensive reasons. Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc; perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory. I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory; just win your arg (big fan of cheaty CP's, but def receptive to aff theory args to reject them)

Ks: If you wanna read a K go for it; win it like any other argument. The FW debate matters to me a bit more than most

T: I think of T as worlds of debate; win your world is better, and I'll be likely to vote for you; RVI's aren't real\

PF/LD: treat it like policy, focus on line by line and impact calc and you should win my ballot

P.S. If you have questions about college debate/college in general, don't hesitate to reach out

hi!! i'm marie (she/her), and i'm a smn graduate! i’m in my first year at umkc studying history and biology, aiming to get my emt license in a couple years :) i did debate and forensics for four years each.

i’m an experienced judge but i’m also just like. a dude. i’m a college kid with a caffeine addiction. as long as you aren’t dropping slurs or something wild i’m gonna be nice.

out of round/decorum(?): i flow on paper, but my system is between me and god so if you see a lot of paper that makes very little sense that’s why. please signpost!! as long as you slow down for tags/signposting, go at the speed your opponents and partner are okay with- within reason. debate is an exercise in argumentation, not who does a better eminem impression. if i can’t understand your argument because you’re going too fast, i can’t flow it, then bam you don’t have a second advantage and it’s all a mess.

let each other finish sentences in cross ex- it is my biggest pet peeve!!!!!!!! your opponent is a person, please talk to them like it. any form of rudeness, especially discrimination, will be noted and weighed when judging (i will dock speaker points and potentially speak to someone about it). part of the beauty of speech and debate is its diversity. embrace it.

in round: policymaker style judging- i do my best to tabula all my rasas, but sometimes my brain slips a little.

• i’ll listen to pretty much any argument as long as you walk me through a K or Theory and convince me of it
• if you’re using a plan that links to the resolution with duct tape and a prayer i will have questions. re: convince me
• if you’re using a default font CP, explain how the benefits specifically outweigh the aff plan. yay! counter plan is better! why.
• CPs have to be well-structured and argued
• burden of proof falls to the aff! if i do not believe the aff would be the best option i will not vote for it, esp if neg is arguing squo

other than these bullets, go bonkers with it, i’ll keep up.

My name is Parker Richmond and I am a 4th year debater. I am the Captain of the SM West Debate Team.

Put me in the email chain if you have one: kentaro.richmond@gmail.com

I also highly recommend SpeechDrop as a way to share your speeches quickly and this is something I really prefer as a judge.

---

Topicality: I will ALWAYS VOTE ON T if you can argue it properly and win. That being said, this does not mean I think you should run it every round, especially if 1. you can't explain your definition or why they are untopical, 2. your definition is really bad, or 3. you can't explain what the aff being untopical does (why it is bad for debate). Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. If you can do all these things, I will be slightly more likely to vote in favor of you depending on the aff answer. If the aff answer is good however, and they are able to persuade me more on either why their definition is better for debate/why they meet, then you should probably just spend the rest of your time on the neg developing your other arguments.

DA: The bread and butter of neg offense, Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. Essentially, you have to prove that there is something in the status quo that the aff plan changes, which leads me to some problem that we would not see absent the plan. The more specific the link the better, I am more likely to vote on a DA with a more specific link. I think impact calc is a very persuasive argument, especially if you can prove that your impact outweighs the opposing teams.

CP: Must be mutually exclusive with the plan (can't do both.) It is the burden of the neg to prove that you cannot do both. I will not vote on a CP with no net benefit (no reason to prefer.) Generally, this will be that your CP does not link to a DA you read, or it solves better (assuming you read solvency arguments against the aff plan.) Don't think there needs to be too much said here, prove that CP is better than plan for me to vote on it.

Aff: I think a very big mistake alot of novice teams make is not answering the arguments made by the other teams. This is something that is very common, and happens alot when learning how to debate, but is a very important part of debate. If you can successfully answer what your opponent says, and what you say that answers it, then you will be in a very good spot to win the round at the novice level. This goes both ways, for both the aff and the neg. I will vote on any impact, but if there is absolutely no reason for me to prefer one or the other. I will vote on both kinds of impacts, including real world impacts (police brutality) and big stick impacts (warming causes extinction.) Again, if you can explain to me why your impact is better, that plays a big part in my decision making. I don't believe that any one solvency arg completely negates solvency, unless you convince me that it is such a big issue that they can't solve. Rather, I view solvency as comparing how much less the aff plan can't solve, and if that is enough for me to not see the advantages being solved.

K: An argument I do not usually run as a debater and have not dealt with extensively, but as long as you explain it well to me and can prove you understand it, I will consider/vote on it, but I personally don't like K affs very much. I do prefer a K with a clear alt or solvency mechanism. 

Summary: I will judge you based on the evidence you provide, as well as reasons to vote for you. I see judging as weighing arguments on either side is made, as well as speakers telling me why certain arguments should be preferred over their opponent's arguments. Being a human, I have my own opinion, but also being a debater, I know how annoying it is to have judges to say "I vote for whatever team because I believe what they said," even if they did not have any other arguments, and you were 100% winning. So, I try to be as neutral as possible.

Overall, I think that a big part of debate is a good balance of reading evidence, and being able to explain what it is that you just read, as well as why it is important. Being able to do that is the foundation of being successful in debate. I think another big thing that should happen is learning how to fill speech time, especially in the rebuttals. I understand that it is not always easy to fill up all your time, but even if it means repeating everything you just said three times, that is still better than ending your speech 50 seconds in.

A really easy way to fill time is to answer and refute your opponents arguments, especially with direct evidence that you read from previous speeches. Even if it is not a very good or convincing argument, it goes a long way. There is a very good chance that if you have are able to respond to every argument that the opponent throws at you, whether by analytics or evidence cards (which you should still extend/explain with analytics), then you will likely win the round. RESPOND TO EVERYTHING!

Also, if you are disrespectful or straight-up insulting, you will definitely automatically lose the round.

YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY WIN THE ROUND IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION: why do they call it water when you protect the cold water of out hot save the water

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.

Disclosure

Add me to the chain - jackshaw.debate@gmail.com

Please include the name of the tournament, the teams debating, and the round number in the header of the email.

Email chain > Speechdrop > File share > Google Drive > Flashdrive > Paper >>>>> "We don't disclose"

About Me

Shawnee Mission South 2022, University of Kansas 2026

Pronouns are He/Him/His, but I'm comfortable with any.

I have experience in policy debate on both the Kansas and national circuits as well as LD debate, IX, and IMP2 on the Kansas circuit.

TLDR

Do what you want*. Win the debate from a technical standpoint on the flow to win the debate.

*I will not vote on outright problematic args like racism good, homophobia good, abelism good, etc. and "suffering is inevitable so we should all end ourselves".

If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or otherwise my thoughts about debate, feel free to ask me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on anything* you tell me to using an offense-defense paradigm.

An argument is comprised of a claim and at least one supporting warrant. For me to evaluate and argument, and for you to win an argument, it needs more than just an assertion without backing.

Tech informs truth every time. Truth has value but technically winning an argument comes first and is the most objective way to evaluate a debate.

Absent a procedural reason for judge intervention, I will evaluate the debate starting with key framing issues and judge instruction, then often the impact level and impact comparison, then the rest of each side's extended arguments carried through their last rebuttals.

I evaluate the round while being a blank of a slate as possible. While I do have opinions about debate and arguments, I have no real overwhelming ideological predispositions or biases, so don't stress about conforming to whatever you perceive my style to be.

I will evaluate evidence the way it is spun in the round first. I will read over relevant and especially flagged evidence before my final evaluation. If you think it is pertinent, ask me if I want a card doc. I probably will.

There’s no need to call me judge. Call me whatever you see fit instead; just “Jack” is fine. Or just avoid personally addressing me.

If I'm not reacting to what you say with any emotion, it's because I'm trying not to, as I want to evaluate arguments as a spectator without being a distraction or a real-time influence on what is being said.

Procedural Notes

Both teams should disclose a reasonable period before the round. I will not hesitate to vote on properly executed disclosure theory.

Academic ethics violations are bad. To avoid this becoming an issue, be clear where you mark cards and be ready to send a marked copy if it is requested of you.

You can insert perm texts and short rehighlightings, but read your rehighlighting if it's more than a few words.

Speak as fast as you want so long as you are clear. I’ll give two "clear"s if you are not clear. If the problem continues after that, I'll flow what I catch and miss what I don't.

Sending analytics is cool and can boost speaks.

Time yourselves, including CX and prep.

I don’t really care what you do with your CX time; I think of it like a speech that I mostly don't flow. Asking your opponents questions is good and can help speaks and ethos, but if you want to use CX as prep time, I won't stop you.

I always default to open CX, but I am fine if all of the competitors agree to closed.

Speed is good and preferred if you can read clearly and if there is no ability-based opposition in the round, but you'll be better off speaking in a style you are comfortable in front of me with rather than one you are not, especially for rounds with a tricky panel.

Speaks will reflect the quality of debating done, though difficulty of the tournament's pool will scale all of my point assignments. I am open to using speaker points as objects to be discussed in the round as a form of solvency or praxis if you can win it, but I lean towards using the ballot, including speaks, as I see fit rather than as praxis for debaters.

If I can give an oral RFD, I will. I will be as efficient and direct as possible and will share the reason for my decision as well as broad comments for both sides with more specific comments being left to the ballot, as I respect the competitors' time. With that being said, I am always open to questions and can elaborate as much as time allows me to. Feel free to email me after round if you have any questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.

Online Debate

If my camera isn't on, assume I'm not there unless I say otherwise.

Please turn your cameras on if you are able and feel comfortable doing so.

I understand and empathize with tech issues, so just keep us updated as best you can on resolving them as they arise. If a tournament has tech time allotted, let us know clearly (if possible) if/when you need to use it.

I will likely have some good headphones to listen to you with, but I may still miss something if you cut out or are inaudible, so play it on the safe side and prioritize clarity over speed.

Mute if you aren’t speaking, especially if there’s background noise. We all should be able to hear the speaker as best as possible without external distractions.

Case

I like to know what I’m voting for, so be clear about what signing my ballot for you entails and affirms.

You don't need a plan to have an advocacy, but you should at least have an advocacy.

Kritiks

I'm partial to letting the aff at least weigh their impacts on FW.

As with evaluating an aff's advocacy, make sure you tell me what I’m voting for when I vote neg for the alt, whether that be “reject the aff” or a fundamentally new model of society or anything in between or beyond.

Arguments centered around identity should appropriately reflect the debaters advocating for them. I am all good with those arguments in a vacuum and by no means would I force someone to justify their identity, but this is something to keep in mind when making that personal and strategic choice in front of me.

Disadvantages

Intrensicness is bad and my threshold for voting for this argument is very high.

Counterplans

All counterplans will be evaluated as legitimate until the aff wins otherwise.

Judge kick is good when applicable. If the neg can win that condo is good, I will default to judge-kicking a counterplan unless the aff can win otherwise. However, if a counterplan is in the 2NR, I will flip presumption to the aff unless the neg can win otherwise.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

RVIs aren’t real at least for affs with plans.

On the question of framework / T USFG, I consider myself somewhat aff-leaning, but I won't hack for the aff by any means.

Theory

My reject the team threshold is high but my reject arg threshold is lower.

Don't spread through your analytics at max speed if you want me to catch them.

I generally like to flow non-arg-specific theory like condo on a separate flow to keep it clean, so make sure to note where theory is on your roadmaps.

PerfCon is oftentimes more of an internal link to condo than an independent voter, but I guess I can vote on it if you want me to.

For an ethics violation, I need to have clear and definitive proof of the abuse occurring as well as a clear willingness to stake the round on it before I can consider pulling the trigger. However, at the point at which abuse has clearly occurred, I am partial to dropping the team. If I agree with the violation, then the violating team gets dropped with minimum speaks and the other team gets max speaks. If I do not agree with the violation, it's the inverse.

Lincoln-Douglas

Traditional > Kritikal > Philosophy > Theory > Tricks

I debate on the Kansas circuit, so I've really only been exposed to conservative/traditional LD, though I am confident in my ability to adapt based on my policy knowledge.

I default to organizing the debate by flowing definitions and burdens, values, criterions, aff contentions, and neg contentions on their own respective pages.

Definitions > Value > Criterion > Contentions