My email is GingerPeachTea8890@gmail.com if there is an email chain! (but I prefer speech drop ngl)
Pronouns: they/them (you do not have to call me judge btw just call me Parker)
Right now I'm a three-year DCI debater (btw I have autism so don't be loud when speaking)

There will be some topics I am unaware of but for the most part, I will know the topics of debate.

Speed: PLEASE do not spread. I would like to understand what you are saying but I will also be looking at the files.
If your opponent has a disability and tells you to slow down I expect you to do so. Your ballot will reflect what I take from the situation.

TLDR: Run whatever you want! I will pay attention to what you run. If anything you run is racist, sexist, etc I will NOT be voting on that argument (in other words an auto loss) clipping or abusing prep is something I will take into account but it shouldn't cost you the round unless your opponent blows it up or happens multiple times. If I find out ur cards are AI then thats also an auto loss. Please tell me why I'm voting for you in the rebuttals.

Speaks: Honestly I think they are ableist so I prefer not to vote on speaks at all. If you let me know that you have a speech impairment of any kind I will work off your material and how you handle things instead of stuttering, tics, etc

T: If you run Topicality you need to know how to argue it. I weigh the T debate highly so it will cost you the round.

DA: If you have a good link I'm all here for it!

CP: I LOVE THEM!!! I love to see these run in rounds. (have good perm responses lol)

K: I'm fine with Ks but dont run them in novice... If you only ran this to confuse your opponent you will be docked. If you are confident you can run it well and ur advanced debater/coach says they believe in you or something then sure. If you are just trying out a K I will also judge that and won't be upset at all. we all experiment ad im willing to give major feedback on that.

Please have a good time and feel confident!<3

Name: Caelynd Beck

Pronouns: They/Them

Affiliation: Shawnee Mission South

Experience: 2 Years

add me to the speech drop, or email chain at caelynd.debate@gmail.com

Speaker point stuff at the end of PF

Policy

Experience:

I have done policy debate for 1 Year, Public Forum for 2 years, and forensics for 2 years. I am typically a critical debater, but my novice year I read mostly disads and counterplans

General Philosophy:

Debate should be about education with an emphasis on critical thinking, and public speaking, but I also think debate should be a fun and enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If you make the debate an unsafe space for anyone (racism, misogyny, queerphobia, etc.) it will lead to lowered speaks and possibly losing the round if it is persistent. I try to remain unbiased and evaluate the debate without any interference of my own personal beliefs. With that being said, it you read anything along the lines of "israel good" you will lose the round. Find somewhere else to defend genocide.

Tech>>>Truth but I lean more more truth than other judges. As Jam says, if both teams are ahead technically, I will take truth into consideration.

Cross x

Eye contact is a must. You are convincing your judge that your argument it better, not your opponent. Cross is open. If your opp wants open and you don't let them, I will think your mean, which won't actually affect my decision, but it will hinder your ability to make friends in debate

Framework:

I love framework debates, but don't let that pressure you into reading it. I just think fw is super fun to evaluate, but it has to be explained well. If neither teams provides framework, I default to a utilitarian perspective, weighing impacts using calc

Topicality:

T is a voting issue. T arguments have to be specific, and not vague. Please explain to me exactly why the aff is untopical. I evaluate based on competing interpretations

Kritiks:

I really like K's and find them to be a really fun part of debate. With that said, they can get very problematic very quickly. Please be kind. The link is the most important part of a K imo, bc without a link, then the impact doesn't happen if the aff passes, and the alt doesn't solve. Extinction impacts are boring but safe go for it if it's what you're comfortable with. It won't be a factor in my decision. You need to explain why the alt solves. Feels like common sense atp but pls don't run Ks of identities that you are not. A good rule of thumb is to assume your judge has no idea what your K means, and has never read anything on it. Over Explanation is rly important in K debate, ESPECIALLY IF YOU READ A K ON THE AFF!!!

Disads:

Impact calc is crucial. I don't have a lot to say about DAs. Run what you want but please make sure your argument is clear

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 willing to vote on theory, but you must convince why I should reject the team and not the arg. I think theory debates can be really fun, but it sucks when people just mindlessly read blocks. If you read theory, you should understand the theory you're reading, and why you're reading it. You shouldn't just read theory because you can. I have a very low threshold for disclosure. I will vote on it. I don't care if your coach told you not to disclose. If you have debated before and you get disclosure read against you, you'll probably lose

Speed:

Go as fast as you need, but know that I have hearing problems, so make clarity a priority. As I currently stand, I am uncomfortable clearing people, so just use visual cues. If I look confused, you are probably going too fast. Even with all this, please send analytics if you have them. I won't dock points for sharing to just me, and not your opponents, I just really need to be able to read along with what you're saying. Go slower if debating online. If you have pre-typed analytics and you don't send them, I will doc you a point. It creates ableism in debate, and is a horrible norm

Points of Emphasis:

1. Clarity of arguments: This is the most important thing in a round imo. I honestly think an argument I understand can be better that having good cards/evidence. This is because if I understand why your argument is good more than I understand why your opponent's is good, I am much more comfortable voting for it.
2. Impact calc: This is the next important because it can really make or break a case. Your impacts are the reason we care about your case. While definitely not advisable, you can still not get crushed on the case debate if your link or internal link are subpar. Without a good impact, there is literally no reason for you to be reading your advantages, and impact calc is there so you can prove your impact is better than your opponents. Please please please do it. It leads to much more productive and education speeches
3. Evidence: I think that a lot of people in debate place way to much power over and around evidence quality, and while it's very important, I hate it when people automatically assume that evidence is better just because it's newer, or from of more well known source. I also think that if you want to read evidence in a round, please actually know what it says. the amount of times I have heard people make a great argument in their speech, and then say something in cross that completely goes against it. All in all I think evidence is really important, but I'm more likely to use it as a tie-breaker. If you have better arguments, but your ev was published a month before your opponents, you'll still probably win

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 on tab aimed at helping you improve.

Public Forum Debate

General Philosophy

Debate should be about education with an emphasis on critical thinking, and public speaking, but I also think debate should be a fun and enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If you make the debate an unsafe space for anyone (racism, misogyny, queerphobia, etc.) it will lead to lowered speaks and possibly losing the round if it is persistent. I try to remain unbiased and evaluate the debate without any interference of my own personal beliefs. The whole point of PFD it to be more accessible than policy, so keep that in mind during your round

Framework

PF framework debate are literally my favorite debates to watch in the whole world, but again please don't let that pressure you into reading it if you don't want to. Also remember that you don't have to read competing framework. If you think you meet the other team's fw better than they do, say that! this is what I go for a lot, and I don't see it nearly enough.If neither teams provides framework, I default to a utilitarian perspective, weighing impacts using calc

Theory

I am willing to vote on theory, but you must convince why I should reject the team and not the arg. I think theory debates can be really fun, but it sucks when people just mindlessly read blocks. If you read theory, you should understand the theory you're reading, and why you're reading it. You shouldn't just read theory because you can.

Speed

Guys. It's public forum. chill out. Please don't go fast. Be accessible. Also, I'm from Kansas and am used to evidence sharing, so please do it, even if it's not something you usually do

If you say "They dropped the 1ac" in your second Pro speech I will dock you 2 speaker points for not knowing how PFD works

Speaker points

Flow check questions bring your speaks down, tags that don't properly summarize the card brings speaks down, eye contact during cross brings them up. If you bring me food during a round I will bump your points

Forensics

Ik a lot of forensics judges don't have paradigms, but I kinda don't care. Why do the policy people get all the fun???

Over all, just make sure to put a trigger warning for sensitive topics, especially out rounds where you'll will have more than just the judge watching you. I feel like this goes without saying, but unless you having a reason for not, please make sure I can tell which character is talking, or I'll get really confused

hi i’m eliza and i’m a third year debater!!

generally, please be kind to the other team in round. i will not tolerate any racist, sexist or hateful dialogue.

speed: read at a pace that can be understood, but i don’t care if you are fast

please make sure you are telling me why i should vote for you!! extend arguments and point out what the other team dropped!! i will only vote on things if you are telling me why i should

good luck! have fun! if you have any questions after the round you can email me at 3092934@smsd.org

Hi! I'm a fourth year debater at SME, and I mainly debate national circuit

Pronouns she/her

Pls add me to the chain - leonard.sophia.103@gmail.com

My debate philosophy is mainly influenced by Jwilk, Grayson Weber, and Trey Witt

TL:DR

I am chill with whatever you want to read as long as you clash

General Notes

• racism, sexism, homophobia, violence is an auto loss
• Tech over truth
• If you have an accommodation request pls ask with me present - debate is your space and I want everyone to feel comfortable in it but I feel weird judging an accommodation violation argument if I didn't know there was one
• Ok with speed if you're clear
• I like open cross but prep before cross-ex will steal your speaker points
• A debate without good clash is lame. Card dumping is boring
• If you make me laugh I might boost your speaks :)
• Please don't pack up during the 2AR, it stresses me out
• I don't specifically function on a policy making paradigm, it's your job to tell me how to evaluate the round. I think debate is probably a game but not necessarily
• I don't want to judge intervene so pls frame your arguments in final rebuttals
• RVIS ARE NOT REAL
• #Bringbackwarrants2024 - extending the tag of evidence isn't compelling

AFF: whatever floats your boat, but if you’re running a k aff please make it accessible: I'm not always super familiar with the lit.

For the neg: only reading case defense is boring. Read no solvency, offense, case turns etc

For the aff: A really defensive 2ar is never a great idea and leans towards a presumptive ballot. Take advantage of the last speech because framing arguments are really compelling

T: I HATE ADJUDICATING T. If you decide to disregard this and go for T it better be at least the majority of the 2nr. I default to competing interps even if they're silly

K: I've read militarism and cap so I'm relatively familiar with those lit bases, as well as set col, security, pess, but don't assume I'm super familiar.

Fairness is only an internal link if you say it is :)

2nr's I find compelling are 1) Framework and link analysis or 2) links and alt especially with real analysis on causal solvency

I really love when teams impact turn one another's framework or do impact calc on FW

DA’s: Idk I'm not picky on DAs, but I do love smart impact framing arguments in the rebuttals - mitigation or prerequisite arguments are underrated. I think politics or elections on this topic is squirrely at best

CP’s: go for it but just know I’m not great for a competition debate or condo debate - I think 2nc counterplans are devious but do your thing i suppose

Theory:I'm ok for it, I like creative theory. If you wanna go for severance perms bad I would rock w that. If you hide aspec from your opponents you might accidentally hide it from me too tho

Impact Turns:the best strat in the game

Mich update

my judging philosophy is comprable to the quote by joe biden- "In the good old days when I was a senator, I was my own man."

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!! da links must be to the plan text, but k links can be to squo and terminally nonuq

pls turing test!!!! there is an epidemic of robots in this activity :(((( ill send u the file

average speaks are 28.5 on a sliding scale -

lose speaks (-.1) by being annoying, if i have to clear you (after 2 clears you get a 20), having a computer with a screen over 12 inches (or double monitors), not preempting aspec in the 1ac, or your name starts with a J and you're a gemeni

*Note - if your name is Jaxson, Jackson, Jaxon, or any iteration you immediately get the L + 1 speaker point + report to tabroom

gain speaks (+.1) by reading your plan as if you were a kansan performing a dramatic interp, making a joke, bringing me a snack (if its an energy drink auto 30), starting your final rebuttal with the hail mary, and +.2 if you hide aspec (aff or neg) (jk) (maybe not)

i feel uncomfortable adjudicating any arguments about patents

i prefer email chain (add me, mccrackendebate@gmail.com) but speech drop is chill

name: hayes "the animal" mccracken

pronouns: he/him

school: shawnee mission south (go 'ders !!)

experience: i'm a second year debater, was like decently competitive last year (placed like 4th @ state and did some varsity stuff) so don't think i haven't been around the block. i mainly read DAs, CPs, and T,

tech>truthbut if both teams are ahead on tech i can consider truth

cross x:i think open cross is better but if y'all wanna go for closed do it, just tell me beforehand. also, if you're standing for cross x, look at me! look at the judge! please!

speed:spreading in novice is cringe, if you wanna spread that bad just go to jv bro. you can be on the faster side for like novice/open speed (make sure you actually get through your arguments) but don't spread that's weird.

DAs: love these, just make sure you're actually warranting them out and extending your arguments, most importantly tell me a story!! explain WHY the aff links to an impact, and HOW it causes extinction, don't just read it off your cards!

CPs: same sort of thing as DAs, you need to really make it clear to me why the counterplan solves better than the aff, and most importantly the net benefits to it.

T: i loveeeeee T but you really gotta be good at it and confident you understand it to take it past the 1nc, don't go for it just for your ego bc you're gonna end up being bad at it and undercovering other important stuff trust. if you're really goosing to go for it, youneed to do 5 minutes in the 2nr, i'm probably not gonna vote on it otherwise. make sure you really get across why topicality matters and proceeds every other argument, otherwise i probably won't vote on it.

Ks: i'm definitely not quite as familiar with Ks as i am the other args, but don't let that scare you away from running one. go for it! they're cool! if you explain the k like half decent to me i'm not gonna get confused you just have to explain really well to me why your framework is good.

other stuff (all important don't stop reading yet): you can probably tell from the rest of this but i really value explaining your arguments, i don't need like an underview under every card in the 1ac or something like that (i usually prefer when you don't do that) but during the rebuttals especially you need to know your arguments and really warrant them out. you should be extending your arguments throughout the debate, not just only reading new cards (a lot of times cards you already read answer stuff they said!) please actually respond to the other team's arguments, if there's no clash there's not much to vote on! impact calc is also pretty important to me and something that will definitely win you rounds, so make sure you're doing the work on that in at least both of your rebuttals. finally, just don't be rude or a bad person, any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, slurs, etc. will not be tolerated and will lose you the round.

hi! I'm Mira and I'm a second year debater at SME :)

I'll leave very detailed feedback on my ballot but feel free to email me at miramcinnes@icloud.com if you have any other questions- as long as it's respectful

I went to JDI this summer so I have a fair amount of knowledge on this year's topic but please still err on the side of overexplaining your arguments, especially the more niche they are!

tech >>> truth

having good evidence is important but analytics are also essential to clash- debate is more than just a card reading contest!!

CX

lowkey the most important part of a debate-if you can't defend and explain your positions you're unlikely to win rounds

how you do in cx is one of the biggest determinations of speaker ranks/points for me

it's binding- nonnegotiable

use all your time always!!

Ks-I don't run Ks often but I'm familiar with cap/property- feel free to run them but please know what you're talking about. I probably won't vote on these without a strong link and alt

T/theory- I LOVE T and will absolutely vote on it if run well, just make sure you extend what you need to and explain why this matters. you can totally run other theory arguments but depending on what they are it'll take a lot of work to get me to decide the round on that alone

CPs-I like them-not many thoughts other than hammer on your net benefit

DAs- more likely than not you'll be running (and need to) at least one when you're neg since these are some of the strongest offensive reasons to vote neg. just make sure you have all the parts!

general

PLEASE DO NOT SAY SOMEONE DROPPED SOMETHING IF THEY DIDN'T-this is either because you're not flowing or just trying to lie and neither is good obvi

debate is fun! act like you want to be here!!! even if it's the last round and you just wanna go home- it makes it so much more fun to judge

being mean is 1000% a voting issue-be assertive and passionate but don't let this turn into rudeness towards your opponents

stealing prep is bad. I'm not going to overly police this but there's no way it's genuinely taking you five minutes to send a doc

I'm a 2nd-year debater

• please do not spread this if you are a novice

  • *I will NOT be able to understand you which will lead to me marking you down
• I don't care what you read as long as you actually understand it cause I will be able to tell if you don't understand it and will mark you down
• if you run a K please be clear when you explain it is really easy for a K debate to get messy but when it is done the right way I really enjoy it but don't let that change what you are running :)
• if you run a T explain why I should vote for it
• tech>>>>>>truth
• let me know what type of cross X you plan on doing
• I prefer using speech drop because it is easier for me but if you do an email chain my email is 3140327@smsd.org
• if you are not being polite during the debate round then I will mark you down or vote for the other team

I am a second year debater at Shawnee Mission East. I debated the fiscal redistribution topic, and have a moderate amount of knowledge on this topic. I love it when people explain what they are saying and their arguments. When you are able to explain your evidence, it gives me more of a reason to rank you higher and vote for you. If you are neg... I hate Ks. Do not run a K. CP are good if you can run it well. I am open to any DA so long as it is relevant. If you are AFF... explain your AFF well. You have to defend it. If the neg wins me on any of their arguments, they will win. Please have a well-timed 1AC. You should not be cutting cards or unable to finish in a 1AC. Don't even try to run a K-AFF. I am all good with topicality and theory, so long as they are relevant and not a time filler. I do not like it when you drop arguments. If you are going to bring something into the debate, you better be able to defend it. Heat is totally fine within a debate, but if it is excessive you will look dumb. Some things I find annoying is either team talking loudly during a speech and packing up before the 2AR is over.

I do handshakes.

Be respectful and sportsmanlike.

I don't care for K's but of course if you are well prepared and argue it well I'll vote for it.

I think you should explain your arguments instead of just reading cards~ if you can't explain it I am far less likely to vote it highly.

If you read this paradigm, tell me your favorite president.

Ella Quintana

she/her

3093049@smsd.org

SpeechDrop preferred---but email chain is fine

PLEASE DON'T SHAKE MY HAND (I'm sure you're nice, but don't)

Be nice and respectful (don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc)

Tech >>>> truth

For me, cross is always open (if you want it to be closed, talk to the other team and let me know before the round)

Run whatever you want -- have fun!

No AFF offense in the 2AR means I vote NEG on presumption

Tell me how to vote -- Judge instruction in rebuttals is how you get my vote

DAs- I'll vote on whatever

CPs - I'll vote on whatever

All counterplans are fine, just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate

T - I'll vote on whatever

I default to competing interpretations

I don't think reverse-voting issues are much of a thing unless something egregious happens

Theory - I'll vote on whatever

Kritiks- I'll vote on whatever theory you want to read

KNOW WHAT YOU'RE READING

Have a clear 2NR link

If your strategy involves framework, just be clear about what framework disad you're going for and why your interpretation solves

Kritikal Affs- I'll vote on whatever

I don't have too much experience in KvK.I think fairness can be an i/L or an impact, and I don't lean any specific way, just be prepared to defend your claim. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solving fairness while only linking to the AFF offense half the time.

Hi! I am a second year debater at SME, and I debated the fiscal redistribution topic last year. I have a moderate amount of knowledge on this topic.

My pronouns are she/her. Please add me to the email chain - merrynrupp.debate@gmail.com

General Notes:

• Any racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, violence, etc. is an automatic loss.
• Truth over tech, but I will evaluate both.
• No spreading. That said, you don't need to speak at a regular conversational pace.
• Don't use prep time for CX questions.
• Don't steal prep.
• Framing your arguments in final rebuttals is helpful.
• Extend warrants, not just card tags.
• Impact calc is important.
• Heat is fine within the debate, but don't attack others and don't be excessive.
• Please don't lie about a team dropping an arg if they clearly didn't.
• Don't start packing up in the middle of the 2AR.

AFF Notes:

• The 1AC should already be cut and timed.
• Make sure to explain your aff well, and be able to defend it.
• If you're running a K Aff, be sure to explain everything extensively as I do not have much experience with them.

NEG Notes:

• I am good with most CP's and DA's, as well as topicality and theory.
• Don't only run oncase arguments, make sure to have offcase positions. However, don't run positions as a time filler either.
• If you're running a K, be sure to explain everything extensively as well.

Overall, everybody try to have fun! Debate is a great educational activity and it's a great way to make new friends.

I'm a third year debater lay debate and overall I don't really have opinions on what you run. Just be sure you can explain what you are reading in concise and simple terms especially if you run a K. Also I would prefer it if you don't spread but feel free to talk fast. Before rounds clarify if cross-ex is open or closed but I don't have any preference. Please add me to the speech drop or email chain as I will be flowing. I judge partially on flow and partially just on your ability to create and defend your arguments. If you act disrespectful or are obviously on your phone I will mark you down. Eye contact is cool but definitely not required. Have fun!

(William) Grayson Weber

He/Him/His

will.webersmwdebate@gmail.com---Email preferred

Don't shake my hand, please.

General Thoughts

Please be respectful---pronouns, speed accommodations, don't clip, etc. don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc

Accessibility IS GOOD. Not sending analytics is bad practice. It won't lose you the round but I'd prefer you would.

Tech>>>Truth

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. Stop evading clash.

I'm good for whatever speed, but be clear---I'll clear people

Run whatever---debate is supposed to be fun, don't let me constrain you from running what you want---I will adapt :)

Death good is cringe and I will not have fun in that debate, but I will listen.

No AFF offense in the 2AR means I vote NEG on presumption---Please don't make me do that

Tell me how to vote---2NR/2AR judge instruction is the best way to get my ballot, I need to know what a post-ballot AFF/NEG looks like. If you win x argument, why does it matter? You might win that argument in the round, but implications for why it matters are key.

DAs - I'll vote on whatever

If you can explain 'perm do the DA' in a way that makes sense I could vote on it.

CPs - I'll vote on whatever

Perms are just a test of competition.

All counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

I am sympathetic to AFFs when it comes to CP competition. I think the NEG has gotten too comfortable reading things that rely on artificial competition.

T - I'll vote on whatever

I default to competing interpretations.

I don't think reverse-voting issues are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

Theory - I'll vote on whatever

Kritiks - I'll vote on whatever theory you want to read

Please have a clear 2NR link. If your strategy involves framework, just be clear about what framework disad you're going for and why your interp solves.

Kritikal AFFs - I'll vote on whatever

I don't have too much experience in KvK.I think fairness can be an i/L or an impact, and I don't lean any specific way, just be prepared to defend your claim. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solving fairness while only linking to the AFF offense half the time.

Hi! I'm Josie (she/her), this is my second year of debate and I went to NSDA nats '22 and '23 in World Schools debate.

I'm definitely flexible-but here are some of my preferences:

-Aff case: Be as clear as possible with your plan and the logistics of your plan. It's hard to judge if I don't understand what I'm judging on to the fullest extent. (also, this should go without saying, but I can totally tell if you don't understand what you're running..know about what you're running before going to the tournament pleaseeee)

-DAs: case-specific DAs are more fun imo but use a general DA if you want (as long as you can link effectively)

-T: run it if you want but I think they're kinda boring tbh-I probably won't be super on board unless the aff interp is like super abusive

-CPs: I literally love cps so much they're so fun 10/10 recommend

-Ks: Im not super familiar with Ks, but I think they can work really well from what I've seen (but only if you know what you're doing with them).

-Theory: Again, I'm not super familiar, I don't run into/run theory often, but I think it's fine in certain contexts (if the other team was clearly abusive)

-I wanna be able to hear you; I'm not more impressed by spreading than I am by having clear, comprehendible arguments.

-I couldn't care less if you choose to do open cx-just clarify before the round

-Your job during rebuttals is to summarize your arguments, your opponent's arguments, and why I should prefer your argument. Your clarity with this can make or break a round.

-If you're rude to the other team in any way you will automatically lose the round. (not flexible on this one)