Hi, my name is Alex Benditt (He/Him). I'm a third-year debater for SME. I primarily debate open and have not (and will not) do varsity level. I am a very standard debater and prefer regular arguments that follow a standard structure. However, I understand why other structures might be optimal for others and have zero issues with those who choose to do more creative structures and arguments. If you intend to do T that's fine but make it real. You can't just throw a Hail Mary and hope for the best. You have to actually try. You are welcome to win on tech, encouraged. That being said. If you want a good speaker score you need the truth. (Speaking from personal experince). Good luck, have fun, please don't cheat.

I'm Brynn (she/her) --- I'm a third-year debater at SME and primarily debate open & varsity.

I like being in the speechdrop or on the email chain --- my email's bkbettenhausen@gmail.com

I'll listen to any arguments you choose to make, but I think that the primary goal of debate should be to fully understand and explain everything you're reading. If I don't think you understand your arguments, that'll affect your speaker ranking.

I judge tech over truth --- I don't weigh any outside info in a round. I think judge instruction is super important! Tell me why to value your arguments/impacts, and why I shouldn't do the same for the other team. Impact calc is also super important --- do the work, and tell me why it's important.

I flow rounds and I find clash to be an essential part of rounds. I don't like it when teams just read cards at each other; give me analytics, counter the other team's arguments, and give me reasons to value them.

Please be respectful in round. I don't have an issue with swearing or having fun with the other team, but if it comes to a point in the round where you are attacking the other team itself, and not their arguments, that reflects poorly on you.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! I do give feedback postround, but if you have more questions, send me an email.

Yo I'm Hank D.

I'm tech/truth, if you wanna run some funky arguments, explain them well but I'll still vote for you.

Do whatever args you want to, I don't really have any preferences.

Hello! My name is John Gagen (he/him). I am a second-year debater at SME.

For anything not included in the ballot feel free to email me at 3096566@smsd.org

General:

1. If either team or any debater is at all discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc), I will immediately sign the ballot for the other team. This includes any argument that would suggest the other team should lose due to the types of things stated above.
2. Intentionally giving the other team a copy of your speech to give them a disadvantage such as a paper copy (if you are not a paper debater) or an unhighlighted version of the speech will be counted against you.
3. Don't read a K. I am not a K debater, nor are most people, if you don't have a deep understanding of your K, don't use it.
4. It is better if you underestimate what I understand and over-explain your arguments. I should be able to explain exactly what you said.
5. The same goes for speed. Speak as quickly as you want, but you need to either slow down on the important parts or recap your speech at the end. Your evidence is to back up your arguments, but you need to speak slowly enough so I can understand your arguments.
6. Rebuttals are a massive part of who wins the debate and how I rank speakers. These should be where you make your arguments.

1. If you walk into the round and say "Happy birthday" I'll know you read my Paradigm.

Things I Like:

1. Analytics are the biggest part of your debate. Prove why you are right with logic not just with evidence.
2. Using CX to set up your arguments.
3. Asking real questions in CX.
4. Telling me what I'm voting on.
5. Use the rest of your speech time to explain what you've said.

Things I Don't Like:

1. Running K's without understanding it. (Preferably don't run them at all)
2. Just reading taglines.
3. Taking prep before CX.
4. Asking CX questions to waste time.
5. Using CX to make statements or to make your arguments.
6. Personal attacks, including on your own partner.
7. Running T, DA's, or CP's, without all components.
8. Not using all your speech time, especially if you only read cards.
9. Using evidence without a card, if you googled something, its not public/common knowledge, you need a source.
10. Lying.

About me:

I am a 2nd year debater

Last year was fiscal redistribution and I ran GND

Arguments:

DAs - You should most likely be running at least one as the neg, as they provide great offense. Remember to include the four parts of a DA: uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact and to defend them all.

CPs - I love seeing a good CP. If you're running a DA make sure it's a net benefit to the CP. My favorites are PICs.

K - I don't debate K much, so if you're going to go for it make sure you explain everything so I know why to vote for you.

T - I also don't debate T much so make sure to explain everything. You should not be running T purely to waste the aff's time.

Don't do a Trump impression

If you read this and tell me happy birthday before the start of the round I'll give you extra speaker points.

I am a second year debater at SME. Policy, LD, PFD. I prefer speech drop

T- I don't love T debate but will listen to it, I think it's used to take up time too much

K-I am K debater and love Ks, give me some fw if you have any, Cap and disability are ones that I understand pretty well

Theory- I think most theory is bad (but not all) but run it if you want, it can be good if it's valid like disclosure theory

Spreading- I think that spreading in a novice tournament is bad and makes the debate inaccessible (I will yell slow at you if I think you are going too fast) (I don't spread because I have dyslexia so I'm not accustom to it)

CX- I think CX is a great way to show clash so try your best to clash in CX

Tech or truth- I am a tech judge 99% of the time

Prompting- If you do prompting I will not vote for you, not a thing novices should

Other- This is just for fun, don't be mean to the other team. Call me judge. I default to neg. Racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, ableism is an auto loss. If you have an accommodation need please say it with me present and before so the other team can prep if needed

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

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 miramdebate@gmail.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!

general

• tech >>> truth

• having good evidence is important but analytics are also essential to clash

• please for the love of all that is good and pure FLOW

• don't 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!!! It should be a positive experience, so act like you want to be here and be nice to your opponents. we all get up at ungodly hours to come and read things off our computer-it's genuinely not serious enough to be mean. I love seeing debaters who are assertive and passionate, but if that crosses the line into rudeness it can absolutely be a voting issue

• 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

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

• I'm totally fine with it being open, even in novice. I do think it should be primarily the people whose turn it actually is talking, but I’d much rather your partner answer the question if they know then you use “my partner will answer that in the next speech”

Ks

• I’m not really a K debater but I have experience answering them (most familiar with cap/property). all this means is I want you to be able to explain your K well! don't feel like you have to run them at the novice level if the lit is too hard to understand

• lowkey hesitant to vote on them without a strong, clear link and alt. it’s not enough for you to say something like “cap bad”-you have to prove that the aff causes what you claim is bad about capitalism

T/theory

• I loveee T debates

• from a judging perspective, less anti reasonability than a lot of people but it’s definitely a more uphill battle than competing interps in most cases

• you can totally run other theory args but it’ll require very good explanation of why a violation matters and why your model of debate is better

CPs

• I love most all CPs but these debates often feel like two ships passing in the night-make sure there’s a net benefit to your CP and clear reasons to prefer it over the aff

• these can be won and lost through perm debates-that seems to be very underutilized but it’s a good strat

DAs

• I can’t vote on these unless they have all the parts (uq, l, il, i)

• generally some of the most persuasive offensive reasons to vote neg-when they’re run well and have all the parts that is

• 2nrs that use a DA to paint a picture of the world of the aff and why it’s bad are the way to my heart

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.

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.

Mention of Madagascar - better speaks

KU fan - worse speaks

Not a big K aff guy

Silly arguments encouraged

CapK good

tech > truth

no warrant means no vote

Please don’t say people dropped something if they didn’t drop it

Debated:

2021-2025---Shawnee Mission East (Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, IPR)

Background Information:

He/Him

Call me whatever. I'd prefer Jaxson, but I don't really care.

My email is jaxterreros@gmail.com

Debate style heavily influenced by Jet, Jimin, Jacob, and Owen.

General Thoughts:

Tech > truth

Clarity > Speed

I will adjudicate any argument that is won technically, but I'd rather not listen to things like inequality good and wipeout.

Email Subject Line: Round #---Tournament---Team XY [AFF] v Team XY [NEG]

I'm pretty split down the middle when it comes to leaning policy vs k. I've read affs with plans and without, and have gone for the K a few times.

Michigan Slop (Process CPs) are not cheating - if they're terrible for debate - beat it.

Condo is 100% good, but holy I love condo bad.

Go for competing interps over reasonability.

Just send a card doc, I would really prefer a round where I don't need to go through the cards as you've given me the necessary warrants, but that's not always gonna happen.

RVIs are not real for 99.9% of the time.

Speaks:

To get them up: Be kind, clarity, good in-round vision, as Owen Williams says, "going for the impact turn"

To get them down: No disclosure, being rude, having to get cleared

If you're being racist, a bigot, or anything that is actively harmful, have fun with a 0 and an L!!!

Case:

I LOVE IMPACT TURNS - IF YOU GOT THEM READ THEM.

Good case debating sways my ballot so much more than you think is possible.

K Affs/FW:

Been on both sides, I can go either way.

Fairness is an in-round impact, clash is a model impact. Fairness should be described as the aff is unfair in this round - your ballot cannot resolve their theory of power, but it can resolve this one instance of in-round unfairness. I don't get the fear of going for clash, just go for it if you want. If it sounds like you're reading clash blocks, but just replaced the word clash with fairness you should stop and question it.

The theory of power needs to be strong. I know it sounds obvious, but I've seen one too many K affs that don't have a point besides teams trying to be shifty.

I love aff !/T to FW, I heavily value competing interpretations, but I think !/T is very strong. However, going for one requires proving solvency, which gets lost in the sauce a lot of the time. You need to be clear on how you can resolve the turn, rather than just saying "fairness is bad vote them down" you should explain the mechanism on why the aff is able to change that.

Topicality/Theory:

Reasonability is winnable, but just go for a competing interp it makes the debate so much better.

I have a very high threshold for winning topicality, I think there needs to be a genuine violation of the resolution. For example, if you read something like "T - increase" then give me a quantifiable number and say the aff doesn't meet that. Even if you did the math to prove it, that's gotta be the most arbitrary interp that is so clearly not a violation of the resolution.

As above, love condo, will vote on condo bad.

I think all other theory has a high threshold for me to vote on. I've won on really stupid theory before, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it.

I hate to be that person, but hidden ASPEC is hidden ASPEC, however, if I don't hear it, then you say they dropped it...I'm not voting on that.

CPs:

CPs are amazing, we should read them more often.

I love process CPs. I'm very in the middle of competition thought. I agree they're probably cheating, but if the aff can't defend on why that's bad, then why does that matter?

I think PICs are good. Defend the whole aff!!!

I don't think the neg should be able to fiat international actors.

Consult CPs are terrible, but competition is competition.

I default to judge kick.

DAs:

DAs are obviously amazing.

Do turns case analysis.

Read specific links over generics.

Compare evidence. Why does your link o/w their no link?

K:

Read Ks you know, if you're reading the Nexus K to fill time... let's just change it out.

Rejection alts are fake and terrible.

Articulate your links. You don't need to spam 10 new links in the 2NC, instead extend the ones you read in the 1NC and add maybe one or two more, it'll make the debate so much cleaner, and much easier to vote for you because you can give me actual in-depth explanations of why specifically the aff links to your theory of power and is not to the status quo, which is what I think a lot of link explanations falls short at. If you can't articulate the link as a way the aff worsens it, then I can't vote for it. However, luckily the alt and impact set the UQ, so prove it.

If you're kicking the alt - the reason has to make sense.

Hi! I'm a second year. I competed in both national tournaments, won nov state in extemp, and placed at nov state in policy. I mostly debated open and now varsity.

Pronouns she/her

Please add me to the chain - j_wilborn@icloud.com

My debate philosophy is mainly influenced by Jwilk

TL: DR

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

General Notes

• Tech over truth
• racism, sexism, homophobia, and violence is an auto loss
• I like open cross but prep before cross-ex will steal your speaker points
• A debate without a 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
• I don't want to judge intervene so pls frame your arguments in final rebuttals

CP's: go for it. - I think 2NC counter plans are devious but do your thing I suppose

Theory: I'm ok with it

creds to Sophie for major help