Sandhoefner,+Seth

2017 update. A life beyond college. I will spend the next few months editing this when I'm not cringing at what I wrote years ago and the rhetoric of it.

TL;DR because you have me in a round 5 minutes from now. There's a chance you are seeing me in the back of the room in any event. I try to stay straight tab. I believe that's the most educational way to judge. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ask me anything you want before the round about paradigm stuff. As a debater I always wanted to be informed.

My name is Seth Sandhoefner and I debated for Robbinsdale Armstrong, and graduated 2014.

Even though I debated very much an "old school" LD style I'm not a stranger to the national circuit's style as well. Ultimately if there's two locals in the back of the room I'm fine with the old school VC debate, but otherwise I get the fact for the people who are actually reading this that's not the round y'all are looking for. However, if you're facing a kid who doesn't know what theory, K's, etc.. are do not go 15 off to abuse them (everyone should have a good time in round).

I am a recent college graduate (2017) in finance and dabbled in college forensics to the tune of parli, NFA-LD, and speech events


 * LD**

LD is my home. It's what got me into debate.

__General Overview__ First and foremost I like debates with clash. The best debate in my opinion is when both sides are arguing the actual topic itself, not reading 20 offs, and weighing. However, I won't doc speaks, look at a side better, or penalized anyone in any way for running off cases/args. I've taken a fair share of phil and econ in college, and should be able to keep up just fine. .

The most important thing, and I can't stress this enough no matter what you run **PLEASE** weigh it against your opponent. If neither side is outweighing at the end of the round there's going to be a debater who will come out upset with a loss, and I won't be able to justify it.

I like to vote for debates on the flow. I believe LD if very much a flow form of debate, and I treat it as such.

I also WILL NOT intervene in a round. So don't run anything in which I'd have to do such.

Everything on this page is just my preferences. As long as you warrant and justify your argument you'll be okay. I will vote on anything so as long you have proven that it is true in the context of the round.

__Speed__ I accept it as part of the culture, and will flow it. What I need though is for you to slow down to give me clear taglines/authors. As a general rule I'd say try to match the AC (for the neg). I will yell clear if I can't understand you or if I feel you're going at an unnecessary speed or a speed that I can't/don't want to flow. After a few times of saying it if it doesn't get better I'll stop flowing. If I don't flow something (unless it's my fault) I'm not going to call for it at the end of the round. So if I clear you you need to adjust.

__Theory__ I have no real problem with theory debate, and I'll vote on it. However, I need real justifications behind the shell, and want it cleanly extended like you'd extend anything else. I have no real opposition to RVI's, and am open to hearing them if the other side proves the theory was being run as a time suck and what not.

__Plans/Counterplans/DAs__ These are fine, but on DAs don't assume I know every little trick word of the jargon.

__K__ This is the one spot I never have gotten super in depth with. Kriticks aren't my favorite way to debate, I'm not saying I won't vote for it by any means. Though, don't assume I know everything about them.

__Tricks/Triggers/Presumption__ As long as I buy in that whatever you're trying to convince was triggered I'll vote on it. Make sure to clearly label, explain, and extend the trick/trigger though.

__Micropol__ I get that every couple tournaments I'll see this. Honestly, I still am not completely sure how to judge it. I think it's a very interesting stance, and will vote for it if I think it was debated the best.

__ A Priori __ Usually I don't like to see these.They seem abusive. If you have to though, explain it, and try not to be too abusive (note the emphasis of me saying abusive twice)

__ Speaker Points __ Here's the truth: I'm not a "point fairy". I believe that speaker points are being given out way too loosely these days. Now that's not saying I won't give out a 30 if I feel you deserve one. If you speak well and make good argumentation to the best of your ability in the round the speaker points will reflect as such.

__Other things__ // **Any other questions you may have, or any clarifications I'd be happy to address before a round begins.** //
 * Tell me if I need extra paper (post college edit Seth laughs at this because it's been years since I've flown off paper)
 * At the end of the day I'll vote on any type of argument. Caveat: I will NOT vote for racism, death, rape, or bigotry.
 * Don't be obnoxious or rude. Students are here to learn, and I'm not here to watch snotty debates.
 * Be ethical
 * I like to give RFD as oral and the ballot will likely be empty (unless told otherwise). During RFD you can ask me questions, but don't argue with me. I'm not changing my decision. If we can't get through all questions after the round ask me for my email-I'll give it you. When permitted I always disclose. Depending the round/tournament, however, if I'm in novice I'm more inclined to just write on a ballot, because starting out I believe it's beneficial for the coaches to hear more directly what happened from my perspective.

PF** I think PF is a fantastic activity, and I love judging it. The one thing on the circuit that seems to be increasingly problematic though is a lack of warrants. Maybe it's my background, but simply saying "Smith 2012 says 82% increase.." without any warrant isn't a good card. It's not anything that I require (won't drop you if you go this route), but more warranted debate just allows better overall clash IMO.

__Framework and weighing__ In the framework you have the opportunity to define terms, and tell me how you're going to weigh the round. At the end of the day PF is suppose to be a lay debate, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to weigh and argue everything. I will flow, and I will notice if you try to extend "through ink" (extensions before explicitly responding to your opponents args). Weigh under the frameworks, and if the other side is winning the framework debate you can weigh through both. Tell me how to sign the ballot.

__Speaking__ We're not in policy. Therefore I don't want to see spreading. I don't want people to be rude. I want you to persuade me, and give me good analysis. Inversely, if one team is clearly winning on the flow (with the arguments) and is considerably worse with presentation I'll give a low point win every time.

__Evidence__ This is a fact-based event. You can't look to an individual example to prove something on a large scale. I also enjoy depth in cards (though again not required), because it provides higher quality argumentation. While I can't require it if the other team wants to look at your evidence, I suggest being open about it.

The "other things" apply here too starting with ethical cases along with speaker points.