Slattery,+Sean

Sean Slattery

Instructor/Debate Coach Samford University
 * Samford Tournament 2013***

Former Wake Forest Graduate Assistant

Debated at the University of Mary Washington I prefer that debaters tell me how to evaluate the round as opposed to using my own proclivities to assess
 * Big Picture***

the debate. Given such, I heavily prioritize communication and persuasiveness when evaluating the

round. This does not mean that I have no regard for technical, flow-oriented debate. I find myself

prioritizing dropped arguments in many RFDs (clarification: important dropped arguments, usually not

blippy theory claims). What this means for you is that in your final rebuttal, the first words that come out of

your mouth are very important. Provide me with a way to evaluate the components of the round. This

way, I can hold your narrative of the round accountable versus your opponent’s interpretation of the

debate. If the argument you want me to vote on is not prioritized in a meaningful way on the flow, then

there is a low probability it will be prioritized in my RFD. Debate is about making strategic choices. My job

is to evaluate those choices. Watch me during your speech. When you see me doing the following non-verbal cues – nodding head in

agreement, squinting eyes, throwing hands in the air, dropping my jaw, chucking my pen across the room

- you should try to pay attention to what I’m telling you. Recognizing these gestures during your speech

should serve you well. Speaker Points are determined by but not limited to: execution, strategy, clarity, attitude, and cross-ex. I

wish more debaters treated the 6 minutes of CX seriously like actually speech time. Humor is appreciated. Don’t be obnoxious or vulgar. Be nice to your partner and the other team. Topicality – Definitions for the topic should be generated from the best research and in turn, that view of
 * Content-Related Stuff***

the topic for those interpretations should produce the best research. Disads – I used to have a preference as to which component of a DA is most important (Uniqueness v.

Link v. Impact). After having a bit of judging under my belt, I can tell you that I would rather have you

make a decision telling me which one matters most in round. Counterplans – I won’t evaluate another world after the 2NR unless explicitly told to do so. CP’s that

compete off of the words "should" and "resolved" are probably not competitive. Theory – Any predisposition I have toward a theoretical issue matters much less in the face of actually

evaluating the execution of such questions. The game is yours. Just keep in mind that there needs to be

a reason why a particular theory issue is a voter (i.e., why what the other team screws up the round so

bad that it makes it impossible to accurately evaluate). Kritiks – Well-researched, topic specific K’s are preferable. I’d like the debate to not devolve into some

esoteric discussion about a rando theory that has nothing to do with the plan mechanism. The further the

debate strays from the focus of the plan, the less competent I become. Explain these arguments like a disad (alt solves the case, we win external offense like value to life, etc)

and how the K turns the case – how does the plan result in oil shocks, regional war, or authoritarian

crackdown. This also applies for critical affirmatives answering DA’s. If I don’t understand the argument

then I won’t vote on it. “Non-traditional” Argumentation – I am not as familiar with this type of argumentation as the “policy” style of debate and I also have a little bit more trouble flowing this form. Having said that, I’ve voted for “non-

traditional” arguments before and I do my best to evaluate what’s debated in front of me.