Blackmon,+Seth

Seth Blackmon Attorney Sacramento, CA
 * Coach for C.K. McClatchy HS Debate**

4 years nationally competitive high school policy debate at West Bakersfield High School (graduated 1997) 1 year collegiate policy debate. 4 years high school policy judging (including late elim rounds at USC, Stanford, Cal, etc.) 40-50 rounds in 2012

Philosophy: UPDATE 2012 – Basically my take on things haven’t changed too much. But the following are my more recent thoughts. 2011 Philosophy
 * I find a growing majority of debaters sacrifice clarity for what they perceive as speed when they really aren’t changing their ability to get information out, rather they are just compromising my ability to understand it. If I yell clear more than twice in a speech it isn’t because you are too fast, it’s because you are unclear.
 * Unlike some judges, I flow cross examination and I love a smart/effective c-x. Maybe it’s the byproduct of my being a lawyer, or maybe it's my love of you getting off your blocks and showing some killer critical thinking skills, but when you put “baby in the corner,” I dig it. The only suggestion I have for those who are successfully grilling their opponents is that I would like you to use the c-x answers to your benefit during the substance of your speech.
 * I find myself voting on well articulated critiques. Listen, I am a pretty smart guy, and if you are a bad ass critique debater and you can explain your position and how it interacts with the debate you are in, you can easily win my ballot.
 * **WARNING** Teams that run positions that they don’t understand or explain risk my ire. This goes equally for esoteric K’s, poor disad/C/P combos etc. I am not going to do the work of calling for your cards to reconstruct your central thesis or to try to figure out what the hell you were actually arguing.
 * I still don’t think that “perm do both” is enough to win a round for the aff. I have certainly voted when a round is close and there is absolutely no ink on the perm. Listen, I understand that the 2AC may be under pressure, but the 1AR/2AR needs to explain the perm and how it solves. It's not my job to figure out how the plan and the C/P can happen at the same time. This is your job.
 * I am elevating this section because too many rounds simply fail to do any comparative analysis. Impact calculus is an absolute MUST in the rebuttals but should really start happening in the 2AC/2NC. I look for two things: impact warrants and more importantly comparisons between yours and your opponents. In-depth analysis not only of the magnitude-probability-time frame debate, but how each of those facets interact.
 * 1) __Decorum__. All debaters must treat each other with professionalism and respect. Keep it respectful and then we can have some knockdown/salt the ground/take no prisoners style rounds.
 * 2) __Speed__. No objections at all, however, it must be clear, otherwise you risk that I misflow the arguments. //Signposting and telling me where the arguments go is// **//critical//**, especially in late rebuttals. I prefer a functional blend of speed and persuasion. At the end of the day, as a judge, I want to feel like you earned the decision and that I wasn’t left sifting through the ashes to find the lesser of two evils. Communicate with me, not at me!
 * 3) __Counterplans__. I am open to any test of competition, but it has to be persuasive and properly supported. Obviously, the more potentially abusive the argument is, the more that theory matters…just keep these things in mind. Also, on the Affirmative, merely saying "perm do both" is too little to win a position. Explain the perm and how it functions and give logical warrants why it would be better than the CP (the same goes for kritiks).
 * 4) __Critiques/Kritiks__. Critiques **//must//** be clear, with a well developed alternative. Because I was out of the activity for over a decade, I am unfamiliar with the newer critical authors and I am the least familiar with psychoanalytic literature. As such, I need a little extra explanation of the position. That said, I frequently vote for well articulated critical positions.
 * 5) __Theory__. My tolerance for theory is decent. However, there needs to be a very good reason to vote against the team as opposed to the argument, on the level of pure theory. Thus, if you think you have a viable win on theory it had better be a persuasive story. Simply running out the generic analytical that theory is a voter or "drop the argument, not the team" is insufficient to win a round. Do the work and I'll reward you. Remember...warrants matter.
 * 6) __A few other random facts__:
 * 7) I hate ASPEC args. Not saying they might be appropriate in a given setting. I just really dislike the debate that revolves around this.
 * 8) I prefer debates that focus around a few central arguments. Six or seven off-case arguments is extreme.
 * 9) I vote on good T arguments. I default to competing interpretations.
 * 10) Please don’t make the argument that “fiat is illusory” or similar arguments as to why voting affirmative doesn’t really do anything in terms of “real world change.” Voting affirmative simply endorses a world where the government SHOULD take action. If the affirmative can win that there are benefits to taking that action they stand a good chance of winning.
 * 11) I am an advocate of switch-side debating because I believe it is the most fair/educational form that this sport can take. If you are using the round to advocate that the resolution is genuinely bad, and your primary goal is to let people know this, then you shouldn't care if I vote against you because it is no longer about the game of debate (i.e. winning or losing).
 * 12) Debaters should verbalize the qualifications of the authors they are citing to support their arguments. Smart, sophisticated arguments about the quality of competing pieces of evidence make me happy.
 * 13) Impact calculus is an absolute MUST in the rebuttals but should really start happening in the 2AC/2NC. I look for two things: impact warrants and more importantly comparisons between yours and your opponents. In-depth analysis not only of the magnitude-probability-time frame debate, but how each of those facets interact.
 * 14) I also love a good case debate. It is entirely undervalued and overlooked.
 * 15) Lastly, have fun. This is a great experience for all involved and you will remember some of your better rounds for decades.