shawnee mission south '24 (❤️)

university of kentucky ‘28

maddiesdebate.email@gmail.com

i can flow.

i will vote you down on cops, israel, genocide, any of the isms, or death good

read almost explicitly all K’s (no pomo) in high school except for the fall of senior year — idc what u read

being mean in cross is icky

be kind and smart for good speaks

also i have no idea what this hs topic is so don’t expect i know ur jargon

for online:

speak a bit slower.

i won’t penalize you for not sending analytics but it’ll make it easier for me to process what you say if we are online.

kfarrier@outlook.com

De Soto High School (KS). I’ve debated just about everything, so do wtv.

(+1 speaker point for every speech you give with an accent)

**Debate is supposed to be fun so PLEASE be kind to one another. Bad attitudes make me uncomfy. I won’t vote on spark/genocide good args. Obviously don’t change your case for me, but be aware that my opinions will be reflected in the comments of the ballot.

I have a good amount of experience with policy and K debate, so feel free to run what you want. I’ll do my best to understand your kritical lit, but assume I don’t know what the arg is until you explain it to me. Speed is fine. Please don’t read theory/procedurals without voters; it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Also, don’t perf con yourselves.

If there are any questions, just ask :)

Policy/Forensicator junior at SMS

- she/they/idc-

add me to the email chain - lily.webb.debate@gmail.com

im cool with pretty much anything but...

• if you read a CP, make sure there's a net benefit, or articulate it well
• make sure to articulate K literature if you read one
• with T, make sure to provide a violation
• da's: i love them, especially link and impact debates
• if you talk about something triggering, give a trigger warning
• EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS
• also please don't spread, thanks!

any anti-blackness, racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, problematic behavior, etc will not be tolerated, you will be voted down immediately.

overall just have fun, debate is stressful so do what you feel like and try your best!

3 year varsity debater at Shawnee mission south

I will flow, run any args u want, i like Ks

my email: benjamin.imhoff1@gmail.com

jackson.jackson@lansinglion.org for an email chain- though I prefer SpeechDrop

Hey, I'm Jackson Jackson (he/him)

This is my 3rd year doing policy debate. I have made it to state every year and have gone to Nationals in PFD my freshman year and World Schools debate at NSDA my freshman and sophomore year. I've judged tournaments at my school before. I like to think that I know what I'm doing in the realm of debate.

Policy:

First things first, I will be timing everything. Please let me know when you are taking prep, because if there's anything I don't like, it's stealing prep. If it's an online tournament, I will especially require integrity and you not being sneaky and stealing prep.

I'm not necessarily a flow judge, but I will be flowing and will take that into my decision.

Clarity of speaking is super important to me. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I'm probably not going to take into account what you're saying (which should be pretty obvious).

I am open to pretty much any argument as long as you can outline to me how it pertains to the debate (ie. link chain, violation, relation to resolution). If you drop all of your arguments besides one, explain why I should still vote for you. This also relates to role of the judge. If you make it clear why I should vote for you and not the other team, it exponentially increases the likeliness for you to win.

Overall, don't be a bad human. If you are rude to the other team and it affects the round, it will be applied into my decision in the debate. Have fun and no stress!

asra june --- she/her

3rd year varsity/dci debater at shawnee mission south

add me to the chain: asrajune.debate@gmail.com

novices:

be kind above anything else. to be transparent, i am 1000x less likely to vote for you if you're mean and belittling to the other team. novice debate is about learning the activity before anything else, there is quite literally nothing at stake. being good at novice debate doesn't give you a pass to insult two random freshmen you just met. this doesn't mean don't have swag, you should be confident in your arguments, just don't be mean.

speed is fine, just be clear.

im good w/ any argument. as much as "tech>truth" means basically nothing in this context, its the way i'll evaluate the debate. remember, truth informs tech, the less true (and warranted!) an argument is the less tech you need to beat it. i'll attempt to evaluate the debate w/ as little bias as possible, using offense/defense to determine who wins as default unless given a reason to evaluate the debate otherwise. I've done both policy and k debate, and i've been debating long enough where i'll know what you're talking about. I'm more than comfortable evaluating these debates at a novice level. that being said,

arguments need warrants. i cannot emphasize this enough. even if they dropped an important argument, you still have the burden of explaining the argument w/ warrants, and impacting out why that matters for other parts of the debate. identify what you're winning, and why that means i vote for you. doing this will win you 99% of novice debates. bonus points if you can identify what the other team is winning, and why them winning that argument doesn't matter.

do line by line. most novice debates end up a card reading contest, without making arguments about why those cards respond to the other teams argument. don't do this. you should clash with the other teams arguments! flowing in a novice debate, and using your flow to answer arguments/cards the other team reads (use what you have flowed to directly respond, i.e in a "they say [argument], no, we say [argument]" format during your speech) will win you 99% of these debates in front of me. just remember to warrant out why your argument is true. the flow is how i decide debates, so using your flow to debate aligns the way you debate with how i decide debates.

orders/roadmaps should organize my flow. the order/roadmap is not "first impact calc, and then summarizing the whole debate", because i don't have seperate flows for those things. 1NC order should always be the # of off case, and then the advantages. beyond that, the order should instead be which advantages you'll be on, and which off case arguments you'll be on. i.e "the order is the IRS DA, the States CP, then advantage one, and advantage two". if you're aff, case comes first always. if you're neg, off case should come first. offense before defense.

any questions? please ask. i'm here to help you learn, so if anything here is confusing, or doesn't make sense, just ask me. do keep in mind that my feedback will be in the context of national circuit debate, because thats what i do. if you want more lay feedback, i can give it to you, but i'm likely not paying too close attention to the things lay judges care about. i know debate can be anxiety-inducing, but we're all just here to help you learn this fantastic activity. policy debate is the hardest style of debate, and is incredibly hard to learn for everyone, you all are doing great!

I am not a big fan of extinction or nuclear war impacts, if they are done well that's fine but sometimes it feels like a cop out.

Topicality is also a last resort, not a big fan of that either.

I really like teams that pay attention to what their opponents are saying, since debate is meant to teach you to see both sides of an issue. Also if you're mean to eachother thats another big no no. Generally be polite to your competitors.

Hi my name is Madison Kujawa, i'm a senior at Shawnee Mission South and this is my fourth year in debate

Pronouns (she/her)

Call me Madison instead of judge

Heres my email in case you have questions later: Mkujawa05@gmail.com

Basic things: Speech drop or email chain is good, I prefer speech drop but whatever works, do not steal prep, flows are good, do them right, don't say they dropped something when they didn't I will also be flowing. Most importantly do not be mean to the other team, any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any form of hate to the other team will not be tolerated and will result in loss of the debate and I will be talking to coach's.

actual debate stuff:

DA: Yes love them

CP: Yes love them

T: Yes if explained well

aff: do whatever just explain why its important

K: i'm not super familiar but if explained well I see no problem with it

Please explain to me why I should vote for you provide analytics/impact calc

If any thing above is unclear or need more clarification on something please ask:)

Name: Henry Martin
Affiliation: Shawnee Mission South
Experience: 3 years

Debate Experience

I have been involved in debate for 3 years, competing in Policy debate.

General Philosophy:

I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches critical thinking, public speaking, and research skills. My goal as a judge is to provide a fair and educational experience for all debaters. I strive to remain as unbiased as possible, evaluating the round based on the arguments presented rather than my personal beliefs.

Framework:

I am open to any framework that debaters wish to present, as long as it is well-explained and justified. If no framework is provided, I will default to a utilitarian perspective, weighing impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Topicality:

Topicality is a voting issue for me. I appreciate clear definitions and standards, and I will evaluate T debates based on competing interpretations. I value in-depth analysis over blippy, underdeveloped arguments.

Kritiks:

I am a big fan of Kritiks. I need a clear link to the affirmative or a generic link that's contextualized to the aff, an articulated alternative, and an explanation of the impact. Please don't run Ks of identities that you are not

Disadvantages:

I appreciate well-structured disadvantage arguments with clear internal links and impacts. Impact calculus is crucial – explain why your DA outweighs the affirmative case. I prefer a comparative approach rather than a laundry list of impacts.

Counterplans:

I am open to both traditional and unconventional counterplans. They should be competitive and provide a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan. Solvency advocates and specific evidence are important to me in evaluating counterplans.

Theory:

I am not a fan of frivolous theory arguments. However, legitimate theory arguments are fine, provided they are well-explained and impacted. I will vote on theory if it is clearly articulated.

Speed:

I am comfortable with speed, but clarity is crucial. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments. Please watch for non-verbal cues and be prepared to adapt if necessary. I will say "clear" if I am having trouble following.

Points of Emphasis:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, structured arguments are easier to follow and more persuasive.
2. Evidence Quality: High-quality, relevant evidence will always make your arguments stronger.
3. Impact Calculus: Comparative impact analysis is vital for my decision-making process.

Decision-Making:

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments and evidence presented. My flow will guide my decision, and I will intervene as little as possible. I value logical consistency and depth of analysis. After the round, I will provide constructive feedback aimed at helping you improve.

Final Note:

Debate is a learning process, and my role as a judge is to facilitate that process. Please do not hesitate to ask questions or seek feedback. Good luck, and I look forward to judging your round!

I really enjoy logic-based arguments. I think it's impressive if you can use logic to shut down an argument.

Varsity debater at Lawrence High, she/her

Add me to the email chain: 10204288@students.usd497.org

Generally tech>truth

I'll listen to pretty much any argument if it's explained well, however I enjoy K debates best. I appreciate good argument analysis and find judge instruction very important.

I default to evaluating framework first in K debates, it's an easy way to get my ballot and also just my fav part of the debate. I'm open to pretty much any Ks, teach me about your lit. Just know what you're running because if you don't I wont either.

Be nice and have fun. Run what you're most comfortable with. If you have any questions ask!

I’m a fourth-year debater at Lawrence High School

The goal of this activity is to have fun and learn something.

During the round, I am fine with most things as long as you can convince me that it makes sense for me to vote on it.

For AFF-

First of all, know your aff. I don’t want you reading off the 1AC and not understanding anything you’re saying.

It’s easy for a debate round to spiral down into just arguing back and forth on the Negative’s points. AFF, you NEED to remember to extend your own advantages and solvency. You will have a lot better of a change at the win if you keep telling me why you deserve my vote, not just letting that go and trying to defend against the neg.

For NEG-

Just like I said for the aff- remember to balance offense and defense. You need to poke holes in the Aff’s advantages, solvency, etc. but I have no reason to give you the vote without some sort of Disadvantage, Turn, or Counterplan (more on that in a sec).

DA’s - fine with these on the whole. If your argument makes zero sense and the Aff points this out, I will probably agree with them. You will be better off to keep your DA’s within reason. Still, crazy ones can be fun too.

CP’s - remember that your goal as the neg is to convince me to vote against the aff. My vote is NOT to decide which plan solves better. In a debate between two counterplans, I’m going to tend to lean Aff if the neg hasn’t proved that passing the aff will cause any bad effects. Cps are kill when paired with a DA or some other type thing, but make sure they don’t stand alone.

Email (if you have questions): jay.desoto.debate@gmail.com

Experience: I'm a senior on the De Soto High School debate team. I have been debating for three years and currently compete in DCI. That means in simple terms I know what debate is and you don't need to explain everything like debate terminology to me (if you don't want to). Speed at any capacity is fine but it's novice debate so assume it going to be a pretty slow debate.

Voting: I try to focus on voting on the team I feel won on their arguments and outweighing the arguments of the other team or stock issues. In order to eliminate bias within the debate but sometimes those newer arguments I have never heard before just get me. If they articulate something unlikely to be read from the novice packet I prefer it. As new arguments make a round less boring and fun to watch.

For specific arguments:

T: I love it. Especially for this topic, it's really applicable argument due to the array of funding mechanisms. I do believe you should be reading it every round.

K: I prefer different arguments within the debate like Kritics as they are underutilized in lower divisions. Therefore if you understand and can articulate them properly you should be reading them.

DA: It common argument that I will vote on but you have to win your impact is worse than trying the aff plan.

CP: I love them. Why not run have all the benefits of the plan and solve any other problem. To win on this thought you need to have good solvency for the CP otherwise, there is no reason not just to run the aff plan.

Aff's: Which topic do you pick for aff whether it be JG, UBI, or SS all seem equally advantaged in a round.

Miscellaneous: Overall it doesn't matter what you read to me as long as you understand and can correctly explain how an argument links, works, and solves. The actual debate and clash is how I vote not what affirmative or DA you decided to read at me as long as your arguments apply.

Additionally, you should end your rebuttal with why you won to explain how you should weigh the arguments and impacts. I love impact weighting and comparison of evidence to understand which team wins a debate.

Focus on clear extensions of evidence into the rebuttals

Say where you stop if you don't get through the entire speech or an entire card

Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com

Current KU Debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.

General.

Tech >>> Truth.

Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:

1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.

2. Please, please, please slow down on T, perms, framework, and theory. Making sure I can understand the nuance of these arguments that require a lot of depth is super important.

3. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.

Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.

I will sometimes skim over evidence (only if I'm scouting really) but otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Death good is cringe and I will not have fun in that debate, but I will still listen to spark, wipe out, or death good.

Extinction is the death of most of the human species if not all of it, most evidence does not get to this threshold and is something debaters should point out more. Just because the evidence says 'existential' in one line and does not explain how X causes extinction does not mean you access an extinction impact.

Rehighlightings are cool but this a communication activity which means I would like you to read them. I think inserting like one sentence is fine. Is it arbitrary? Yes. But reasonability outweighs or something something AT: Competing Interps---2AC.

I am sympathetic to Affs when it comes to CP competition. I think the neg has gotten WAYYYYYYY to comfortable with reading things that rely on artificial competition. But a process that says the aff or at least even the topic I think is a decent bright line. (More down below). I'm especially sympathetic to theory interps about solvency advocates.

Slightly longer sentences >>> buzz words.

Condo and disclosure are likely the only reason to reject the team for theory.

I value author quals pretty high.

Policy Affs.

Having 2-4 impacts with justifiable internal links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having 20 impacts in the 1AC

Durable fiat only goes so far.

Proper sign posting in the 2ac is awesome. Going straight down leaves a lot of room for me to mess up which arg goes where.

Impact turning as the aff is fun and I wish I did it more. I think impact turning the net benefit is especially fun and something I would like to judge but I know condo makes this pretty difficult.

Be prepared to justify your assumptions. If you lose to the K a lot it’s likely because you are not justifying why the theory of the aff is good. This is especially true for IR/security debates.

Don't be scared to kick a part of or the entire aff if the block is long.

Don’t be afraid to go for theory against author PIKs or word PIKs.

If you get hit with procedural don’t panic. A lot of times you probably don’t link and then your response is actually problematic. (If you read that apology card vs the ableism procedural I will not be particularly happy [reading a card with multiple slurs in it doesn’t help your case bro])

In depth case debate is awesome.

Kritical Affs/Nontopical affs.

I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Presumption is kinda meh for me. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff is good.

T debates are kinda my worst nightmare. I can flow but damn do y’all go sooooo fast on your 2ac blocks which makes me sometimes lose the intricacies of the T response.

Impact turning >>> our model solves. I think our model solves loses to predictability most times so I would prefer just impact turning clash or fairness.

I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.

Counter interps are often mishandled by the neg and you should take advantage of this.

Good answers to a TVA are a must. If you win the res will never incorporate your advocacy and your advocacy is good then it is pretty easy to me to vote for you even if the neg wins a clash/procedural fairness arg.

I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.

Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.

DAs.

DAs that are 3 cards long with 2 sentences highlighted are cringe. Pls read warrants. Just bc your author says something doesn’t mean it is automatically true. Including the justification in the ev is vital.

Turns case evidence is often not very good and most affs should point this out. But good turns case analysis by the neg is something that will make the DA super big in my evaluation. My thoughts about case turns the DA are pretty similar.

Reading cards that are one paragraph long and have one sentence highlighted are basically analytics. Pls read evidence with reasoning.

Timeframe is underutilized. Most teams use it well in the Econ DA v climate adv but forget about it when it comes to other affs. Only one extinction can happen!

X neg impact inevitable under Y Aff impact is persuasive but without some form of defense will not win you the debate.

External impacts >>> internal. A good aff team will probably out internal link you.

Don’t be afraid to go for defense and risk of case outweighs.

Most DAs say extinction and do not get to that threshold which make the 2ac case outweighs argument very persuasively.

Negs often have bad answers to thumpers and link uniqueness arguments which is something that is really persuasive for me.

Negs should be ready to justify why the aff links to the agenda politics DA when it comes to intrinsicness.

Slight risk of the DA + a CP that solve the entire aff is game over for the aff.

Same thoughts for impact turns (I would love if you tell me to get a new sheet for one especially if you know you're gonna go for it).

CPs.

CPs should compete textually and functionally.

Functional competition >>> Textual competition. Textual competition is just not true.
Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. If the neg cannot prove that X action could happen over the aff then I don’t think it is a real CP that I should evaluate. Artificial competition is bad.

Delay CPs are controversial to me. Do I think they’re cheating? Yes. Are they also a good functional limit of non controversial affs? Yes.

Conditions CPs are meh and probably don’t have an advocate.

Consult CPs should have an advocate that says the topic core or the aff. The aff arg that consult is normal means is persuasive and better when carded.

Affs should impact turn the net benefit more.

Kritical CPs often are not competitive or just not real.

PICs have no bright line. Every CP is a PIC out of something. Neg theory arguments that use this logic are particularly persuasive to me.

Internal links to net benefits are pretty meh sometimes. At least ensure that your not real CP is at least kinda true.

Adv CPs are cool. 20 Plank adv CPs are not.

Uncarded CPs in the 1NC are not real, they do not have an advocate.

New 2NC CPs are abusive asf. Kicking planks is also probably abusive.

My fav CP debates are about authors who say X aff proposal is bad instead we should do Y.

Competition tricks like ban the plan are not persuasive.

K v Policy.

Perm double bind is not a real argument. I hated seeing this every round when I read the Cap K. At best it is a question of link uniqueness which most Ks will have.

Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.

Fairness, education, and clash should be impact turned or solved by the negs framework.

Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.

Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.

Link you lose should be impact turned by the neg more often. It is basically every aff arg on framework that the 1ar extends and winning something like predictability or reasonability as defense definitely helps with this Strat.

Im sympathetic to extinction outweighs.

Consequentialism >>> deontology and various other things.

Links should be specific to the topic or the aff.
For Ks that go for large scale impacts link turns case is persuasive.

Alternatives often go undercovered by the aff and negs should utilize this.

Negs should be ready to justify their alts just like affs should have to justify their theories.

Alt solves the aff should be utilized more.

I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.

Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.

K v K.

Most people do not like these debates and I understand why but a good K v K debate is one of my favorites.

Reading the generic Escalante party alt plus links from a camp file that don’t really apply makes cap debaters look bad.

Affs should get perms. Are they abusive sometimes? Yes. Are no perms worse? Yes.

Alternatives that solve the affs are really persuasive in these debates and make framing the link debate easy.

My fav part of these debates is that bland a crack down arguments probably link to both sides which force teams to have in-depth arguments and expositions about theories of power.

The most important parts of these debates is establishing completion. If you’re gonna read a K in the 1NC then be ready to defend the alt’s explanation of why X happens.

T-USFG/Framework.

Procedural fairness >>> probably every other impact.

The block and especially the 2nr should only extend one.

Aff counter interps are often pretty bad and don’t solve a lot. Negs should point out the aff impact turns to fairness probably link to the counter interpretation or are not solved by it.

Predictability is something both teams should utilize more.

Speeding through these debates are kinda awful to flow.

Clear sign-posting is probably the most important out of most things in this debate.

Group DAs most of them have the same thesis.

2-4 really solid DAs with impacts that connect to case >>> 20 one line DAs with barely and impact.

TVAs are important to me. I don’t think it’s the burden of the neg to prove that the aff could be topical and not reading a TVA is still a winning strat but winning that level of offense kinda makes the debate super easy to vote neg.

SSD needs to be explained better with net benefits in the 1NC. Treat SSD like a mini aff if the advantages outweigh the DAs then add is good.

Do not drop case.

T.

Competing interps >>> predictability.

I think fairness can be an impact.

Aff ground and overlimiting are underused.

Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can defo change my preference.

Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.

Spamming defense without nuance in the 2ac is bad.

Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).

Theory.

Interp wording is vital. I dislike neg strats that default to just calling the aff interp arbitrary. I think all theory is arbitrary its more a question of competing interps.

Resolutional theory >>> nonresolutional theory.

Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.

I don't think judge kick is a voter but a dropped 1ar argument can change that.

I think dropping theory sucks because most time its bad and doesn't link. Auto voting down teams bc of this where I find myself questioning tech over truth but I will try my best to maintain my a fair environment. Tbh I would rather just reject the arg ie someone drops floating piks bad and I just reject the alt.

Procedurals also follow most of this but I think this is definitely where I can be convinced more on reasonability. Aff teams that say something problematic should not go all in on "their interp is arbitrary," after saying a slur. I'm sure this might make some ultra-tech people upset but being problematic inround outweighs and probably ruins the education value of debate

If you got this far please don't make fun of my lack of grammar :)