Tabroom.com

SMNW

2022 — Shawnee, KS/US

Novice Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Greta Albrecht Shawnee Mission South High School

Maddie Augustine Shawnee Mission South High School

Taryn Day SMNW

Last changed on Tue November 1, 2022 at 5:45 AM CST

they/she

I want to be on the email chain: tarynday55@gmail.com

Hi! I'm a 3rd-year varsity debater at Shawnee Mission Northwest (SMNW).

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

Don't be outright rude, if you are, speaks will reflect it.

tl;dr--

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

----I don't mind speed and/or spreading but just make sure you're clear and slow down for tags/analytics.

----Don't say your opponent dropped an argument when they didn't. It's annoying plus I'm flowing and know it's not true.

----In your last rebuttals tell me why you win (write my ballot for me) and it will make me more likely to vote for you

----I like open cross x personally but whatever you all agree to I'm cool with

----Give me a roadmap before you start your speech

----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 love DAs with specific links to the aff plan but generic links are okay too as almost all DAs are non-unique this year lol. 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, 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 or a perm as there's no compelling reason to vote neg.

Ks--

I enjoy Ks if they are done well. If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand it. If you misrepresent a K I am familiar with (liberal militarism, feminist international relations, 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.

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

Feel free to ask questions! :)

William Dirks Shawnee Mission South High School None

Madeline Doyle Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM EST

Hello all, my name is Maddie (she/her)!

Note about myself: I am an advanced debater at Shawnee Mission East and I am on the executive board for the debate program. Since I work with our novices so much, some of that may be reflected in my ballot comments. My goal is to help everyone learn where they can improve, so I will add some comments about how you can do that. Please don't take any of this personally, I am trying to help you get better.

Email: madeline.doyle0628@gmail.com

Please add me to all email chains or tell me the SpeechDrop code.

I am a flow judge... You can't just lie to me about dropped args.

Roadmap: Off-time roadmaps please, for ALL speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in. If you decide to skip around I might be salty, but I won't vote you down for it. Just signpost and let me know what you are responding to.

Args: DO NOT drop a crucial argument, especially if you're aff. I am fine with anything that you run, but if you run something squirrelly and can't answer the opponent's arg, you will lose.

Topicality/Kritiks: I love both T and K. As someone who runs Ks, I am very familiar with which are good and bad. Your alt can be something funny, but you have to make it make sense. As far as T, I think that when done well it serves its purpose. Absolutely do not make T your main arg, you MUST make sure you can refute the aff before running your T. If you tell me something is a voter, I will consider it a voter, I'm easily convinced.

Theory:I really enjoy theory debates. Make sure you have heavy analysis of your theory argument because I want to know that you understand what you are running. Disclo theory is fine, but try not to make this your main arg (unless the aff is genuinely very squirrelly, then I understand).

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but don't spread unless you need to in order to finish all cards. It looks bad if you are spreading and end your speech early. If you choose to spread, please make a point to send me your evidence through an email chain (or speechdrop); I will not be able to keep up with you otherwise. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't.

Being mean is a voter! :)

Olivia Fonseca Shawnee Mission West High School

Asra June Shawnee Mission South High School

Ravnoor Karra SMNW

Madison Kujawa Shawnee Mission South High School

Rose Lawler Shawnee Mission West High School

Henry Martin Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Fri October 21, 2022 at 12:13 PM CST

NOVICES: Just try your best! It is great to see new debaters entering the activity and I will try to give constructive feedback to help you improve.

Please feel free to ask any questions about my judging style before the round!

hi! I'm Henry Martin (he/him). I am a second-year varsity debater at Shawnee Mission South. I've debated on the Water and NATO topics in Policy, along with LD for one year. I also compete in IX and IMP2 in forensics season. I've ran a variety of arguments, from DAs and CPs to Kritiks.

Disclosure: email chain > speechdrop >>> USB Drive >>>>>>>>>> No disclosure. Please send documents as a word doc if possible. It is by far the easiest format for everyone involved in the round.

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: henrymdebate@gmail.com

if you feel comfortable, please let me know your pronouns before the round, either verbally or in an email.

TL;DR: Do what you do best, please don't be overly rude in round, clipping cards is cheating, don't steal prep, sending out the doc in email/flashing isn't prep as long as your partner stops prepping. PLEASE FLOW. put analytics in the doc if u want me to understand them to my fullest extent (I will try to flow, but it's best to put them in there) Please be a good person!

any problematic behavior or hate directed towards the other team will not be tolerated. Offense #1: I call you out and give you lowest speaks. Offense #2: I won't stop the round, but I will vote you down immediately and we'll have a conversation after the round.

if I say something stupid or problematic in rfd or on the ballot feel free to contact me and call me in after the round and we can discuss what happened. I will happily respond to any questions you email me.

judging style: Read what you want* I'll listen to whatever (mostly), but I do have some preferences. I am a flow judge who will vote on the arguments presented in the round, not necessarily your oratorical prowess. I am tech over truth, but truth has some value when deciding tiebreakers in round.

*Please don't read any args like Death Good or Extinction Good. These arguments can be triggering for people in the room.

speaker points: smart args, clear speaking, and warranted analysis make speaks go up and vice versa.

When speaking, PLEASE BE CLEAR. If I don't understand what you are saying it won't be on the flow and I won't vote on it.

specific args:

policy affs: do whatever, explain why your aff is important and how we know everything happens. Please don't neglect solvency.

Kritiks: one of my favorite debate args. make sure you have a specific link to the plan before you run the kritik. More importantly, make sure you understand the lit base behind the kritik before you run it so you can survive CX. Feel free to read any kind of alt in front of me. I have read mostly Cap and Imperialism Ks, with a little bit of Settler Colonialism also. I know the basics of Cybernetics and Security Ks, but try to explain them clearly. Anything else is fine, just make sure to explain what the kritik is.

DA: Fine. L > UQ > I/L > ! Please make sure to read up-to-date UQ for Politics DAs. Make sure you have links to the plan. Impact overviews at the top of the speech are good. Include impact calc with turns case args to make me happy. Especially on this topic, if the DA has the same impact as the aff, be sure to compare I/Ls to determine which impact outweighs.

cp: ok. PICs are good, including word PICs, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Consult CPs are probably cheating, though I have to be persuaded either way. Fine with any other CP. Please make sure to explain how the CP solves the aff (or the aff's advantage). Condo is good, though more than 5 or 6 off can get excessive. Again, I can be persuaded either way.

t: I like it. I default to competing interpretations over reasonability. Make sure you extend your standards and answer the other team's. I have a lowered threshold for voting on T early in the season when clear limits have not been established yet. Make sure to impact out T in rebuttals.

Peggy Patch Shawnee Mission West High School

Abigail Quick SMNW

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 2:00 PM CST

Abigail Quick---she/her---abigailquick06@gmail.com

I am a varsity debater at Shawnee Mission Northwest high school (SMNW). I’ve judged before, and have experience in a variety of arguments/strategies.

The gist: run what you want, how you want. Be kind. Add me to the email chain.

I do not tolerate any kind of hate speech within the round. If you or your partner partake in outright hate speech, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. I may vote against you out of pure principle. At the very least, your speaks will reflect my dislike. Even if you are not participating in any of the many -isms and -phobias, if you are unnecessarily rude during the round, your speaks will also reflect that.

I am fine with speed. If you want to spread, you better be coherent. Don’t sacrifice clarity for cards and we should be good.

-If you want to up your speaker points, body language and eye contact are key!

I enjoy good case debate with lots of clash. Education is the biggest impact in a round.

I believe debate is an educational game, but it's important to remember that we're all people and that things in the round can affect us outside of the round. Enjoy yourselves. Tell jokes, I like jokes.

The specifics:

Theory: I love theory, but not when it’s a block-reading contest. I will vote on theory, but I need warrants and I tend to lean toward “reject the arg, not the team”--there are very few things that could convince me to reject the team.

Condo: I tend to lean toward conditionality being good, except when the neg runs like 8 off in the 1NC. In that case, I will probably vote aff on a well-argued condo bad stance in the 2AR as well as an explanation on why deep debating on your aff is good and how the neg prevents that.

Dispo: No one knows what this is, including me.

Severance/Intrinsic: I lean pretty heavily toward severance perms being bad, but it's the aff's burden to prove me wrong. I don't have a great understanding of intrinsic perms so I can definitely be swayed either way.

Topicality: I like good T debates, I dislike bad T debates. Clash and fairness are not impacts, they are internal links to education. Warrant out your impacts.

Competing interpretations! Don't say "we meet" just to say it, tell me how you meet their interp and why that's beneficial to your side. Explain to me what debate looks like under your model and why that’s better.

T is definitely a lot stronger when you actually believe their aff isn't topical. It's an argument made to protect the negative side, it's not an argument meant to be run for a free win.

Kritiks: Assume I am not familiar with your literature. I run a K aff with my partner and we typically run a K on neg, that doesn't mean running a K is an auto-vote from me.

I am more likely to vote for you if you have an alternative. Explain your links and impacts well. I don't like generic links on Ks and if your link debate is shallow I will likely err aff on the K.

If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the K, I will default to weighing the aff v the alt. If you're good with that, impacting things out is beneficial to both sides. If you don't like that, make a compelling framework argument. PLEASE give me a role of the judge. If you don't give me one, I can't guarantee I will be evaluating the debate the way you want me to. I enjoy a good framework debate, though winning framework is not a guaranteed win, it will most certainly make winning the rest of your args easier.

I suppose in a way FIAT is illusory, but I also believe that arguing about hypothetical policy action is good. You've got to convince me either way.

If you have questions about what Ks I am at least somewhat familiar with and what Ks I am not, feel free to ask before round.

Counterplans: Repeat after me: CPs MUST BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, or at least I believe it is the neg burden to prove that. I don’t enjoy perm debates, they’re kinda dull to me and I don’t think they add to the round especially when theory gets into it. I would much rather see some good turns from the aff than a block from 2013 about how severance perms are good. That being said though, if the CP is not proven to be mutually exclusive by the neg, I will vote on the perm. Delay counterplans are probably cheating but I guess that's up to you to prove to me they're not.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness, link, internal link, impact--without one, it is not a DA. High probability, less detrimental impacts > shouting extinction every four seconds to get a ballot. Timeframe, magnitude, probability--bonus points if you explain these without using the words “timeframe,” “magnitude,” & “probability”

I can't vote on a non-unique DA, but it is the burden of the aff to show that the DA is not unique.

K affs:

Aff: I do believe it is the burden of the aff to at the very least interact with the resolution. If you are rejecting the resolution entirely, for whatever reason, it is your burden to show me that rejection counts as interaction and that you have a well-developed, warranted reason to reject it.

My partner and I run a K aff, this by no means translates to "I am well-researched on and thoroughly understand all of your literature, therefore you don't have to explain anything." If you are running a K aff in front of me, it is probably going to be better for you to overexplain than underexplain.

I also need specific analysis on why your model and the education produced from debating under your model is good and why my aff ballot means that model is affirmed and is key.

Neg: Run T if you want, or don't. I'm probably willing to vote on some specific TVAs as long as the rest of your T arg is cohesive and compelling.

Interact with the aff!! You stand very little chance of winning in front of me if you basically ignore the 1AC.

Other shenanigans:

Death good: Do not run this. This needs no further explanation.

Speaks: Someone has to get the 1, someone has to get the 4. It’s not personal.

If you didn't convince me, you didn't convince me.

Have fun debaters!

Parker Richmond Shawnee Mission West High School

Last changed on Thu September 15, 2022 at 4:19 PM CST

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

Lara Schesser SMNW

Fern Schrotberger Shawnee Mission East High School

Jack Shaw Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Wed November 30, 2022 at 6:15 AM CST

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

Logan Swafford Shawnee Mission West High School

Last changed on Tue December 6, 2022 at 9:26 AM CST

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

General Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I'm generally open-minded to anything in debate, that said, I still fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. That said, if you want to help prevent me from being unpredictable, judge instruction in your rebuttals can help. If you leave things up to me to interpret, you gotta be cool with that (hint: you probably won't be cool with that).

I'm fine with moderate speed, but if you can't speak clearly then slow the heck down. If I miss something because you're sacrificing clarity for speed, that's on you. Slow down for tags and analytics (specifically if not in the doc), although the debaters who need that instruction are probably not the debaters who read paradigms.

Assume I know nothing when running kritiks, because I probably know nothing about whoever or whatever you are talking about, especially early in a season. I'm always willing to listen and will happily vote on it, just help me out. That said, don't be performative. Convince me you actually believe in what you're running. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate round is, oftentimes, high-key problematic and can tank your chances in a round.

I honestly love judging novices and new debaters. This is a great activity and feedback is essential. All I ask is that if I take the time to give you detailed feedback, have an open mind. I'm generally nice and want you all to be successful. I don't know enough about any of you to dislike you. I am bound by the rules of the activity to choose a winner and a loser. Debaters who complain about judges are sore losers. We give up our weekends for nothing but stale coffee and cold pizza, the absolute least you can do is not complain. :D

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with speech drop, email, or internet-related tech issues; have a flash drive (with a USB C/USB A dongle) or hard copies ready as backup and use them 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.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear an abbreviation or slang term. It's just good practice.

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

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will.

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

Phil Volen SMNW

Last changed on Sat November 14, 2020 at 1:05 PM CST

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

Mitch Wagenheim SMNW

Last changed on Wed August 31, 2022 at 4:52 PM CST

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:

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.
Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen.
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.
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.
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.
DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards.
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.

Login to Tabroom:

SMNW

2022 — Shawnee, KS/US

Novice Paradigm List

Judges