Policy debater at Westwood High School
He/Him, you can also just call me Sean^^^
Put me on the email chain before the round:
(Don't worry I default condo)
P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.
Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"
Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.
For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.
If you "disable" the navigation pane by formatting your doc in a certain way, the highest speaker point you can get is a 29.
-1 point if you play League of Legends
+1 point if you play Valorant (you should add me on Val!)
Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.
Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.
Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.
Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.
Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.
Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.
I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.
Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.
I’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I also like to give a lot of nonverbal experience after round, so remember to check your ballot and feel free to email me.
If one team is being overly aggressive during cross x at the point where cross x will just become a huge mess and non-educational, I will likely intervene in the round and someone will say goodbye to some of their speaker points.
In the end, debate is a game, so don't be a jerk in round:)
Debate is a game, run whatever you want.
I'm fine with speed.
I know that PFers usually don't send out any speech docs, but please send me your speech docs.