they/them

Email chain or speechdrop both work! my email is: tarynday55@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years and LD for 3 years @ SMNW and

current college policy debater@ K-State

Assistant coach at SMNW

I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round. I believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) Besides that, I am willing 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. Theory--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--often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. Please develop it more if you decide to go for it in the 2nr. 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.

3. K affs--I am generally pretty familiar with k affs and am currently running one on the college policy circuit. In terms of my thoughts on them, 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. If you want me to vote for you, I need to understand what your k aff does, explanation in these debates holds a lot of value.

4. Ks on the neg--If you are going to run a K, make sure you understand it. If you misrepresent a K I am familiar with (queer theory, FEM IR, imperialism, capitalism, etc.) I will make a frowny face. Make sure you are extending links and impacts. 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.

5. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards.

6. Speed is fine. I don't think anyone on the high school circuit will go too fast for me to understand, however, if you are unclear, I will stop flowing and whatever arguments you made won't be considered.

7.DAs-- should have a clear link story and you should explain it to me in the 2nr if you decide to go for it.

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

Feel free to ask questions! :)

Hi! My name's Brynn Emery (she/her). I'm a Junior at SMNW. I debated up to the Varsity level for 2 years and loved it. I'd like to think that I know a decent amount about the activity having been very involved the past few years. I'm not super familiar with this year's topic though, so please keep that in mind. I do well in regards to speed, so talk as fast as you're comfortable. I vote off the flow, so I'd love to see you bring your flow up to speak and reference it for me.

What determines my vote:

1. How debaters conduct themselves - in the words of Harry Styles "Treat People With Kindness"
2. Flow - I take note when things are dropped, but it will impact my decision more heavily if the other team points it out
3. Credentials - many pieces of evidence are biased. point it out!
4. Analytics - of course, evidence matters, but so does the explanation of it. evidence does you no good if you can't explain why the facts mean you're right.

Arguments for the Neg:

Yes, I will absolutely vote on T if you can run it properly (I believe in you). I love myself a good topicality that makes sense. Disads are lovely. I think long link chains are fun if they can logically connect the impact to the uniqueness. CPs are great tools, go for it! Theory... yes, please. I love all things theory if you can connect it to why I should vote.

Aff:

I'll try my best to be completely unbiased and open to whatever plan you propose. (: Tips for aff: please respond to everything. If you don't have cards for it, go analytical!

Cross Ex tips for both:

• questions should lead you into your next speech/arg or be clarifying.
• I don't mind assertive questions whatsoever, just be respectful
• There's a beautiful balance I believe you will find between being assertive and being respectful.

Speaks: Like I said, speed is fine. Please be respectful. Rudeness will earn you a 4. But I know you're all lovely humans so this won't be a problem. Also... if you can throw in a Taylor Swift or Harry Styles lyric there's a chance I'll take that into account in speaks.

Lastly, debate is a safe space. I want you to have fun. You deserve this space to learn and grow as a person, speaker, communicator, and learner. I want you to feel comfortable, respected, and encouraged during this round. If there's anything I should know that will help you with that, please let me know.

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.

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. However, I do not have experience with this year's topic.

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!