Fitzhenry,+Sean

Sean Fitzhenry Nevada Union High School '08 - '12 Primarily 2N

Experience: 4 Years at Nevada Union High School


 * Disclaimer:** My first tournament judging for the year will be the La Costa Canyon Tournament. This means that I am not very well versed in the topic, so you shouldn't take for granted that I know any of the acronyms you use. You also shouldn't just assume I know what you are talking about because that argument has been read a million times on this topic. Nor should you assume that I know any of the major arguments run on the affirmative. That being said, I don't believe it will be hard for me to catch on quickly, so be extra clear in cross examination and feel free to run any hyper specific strategy that you want.


 * Pet Peeve's:** I absolutely hate when people mispronounce the word hegemony. This might seem pretty trivial, but you won't be happy when I deduct speaker points for butchering the name of the most debated impact in existence. I also really dislike punky cross x. It's fine to embarrass someone in cross x or corner them into saying something stupid, but be classy about it. If they mess up, believe me, I will know. You pointing it out to me will just make me angry, and you don't want that. Just as bad is wasting my time and __#|your__ own time during cross x. Please use it to either entertain me, set up an argument, or clarify something you actually don't understand.


 * Topicality:** I really like topicality debates. If you have your stuff prepared you should be able to win a lot of T debates on this topic. The advantage for the negative in terms of my perspective is that I didn't go to the camps this year, so I don't know the plans that everybody accepts as topical right now. I default to competing interpretations if the affirmative doesn't win reasonability, but I definitely evaluate the limits articulated by both sides over what I think your interpretation means. I will try my best to intervene as little as possible when it comes to your interpretation.


 * Theory:** It's not my favorite, but I am pretty well versed in it, and if you do it right I will certainly __#|reward__ you. If they drop it, that only means you win if you explain why you win, so don't just assume I'm signing my ballot when they drop multiple perms is a voting issue. Make sure when you are reading long multifaceted theory blocks, you **slow** **down**. Nobody can understand that many technical arguments that quickly, and I don't have the benefit of having your laptop in front of me to read them.


 * Counterplans:** Read more than one at your own risk. If you win conditionality I have no issue with this. I am pretty okay with any kind of technical CP. I will vote for Consult CP's, Delay CP's, etc. if you can justify them, so make sure you are up to snuff with your theory. If you do it well, I will definitely enjoy it.


 * Case:** JUST DO IT! I lived for case specific debates when I debated, and I can't wait to judge a hyper specific case debate this year. That means having the 2 NC be entirely case is bad ass, and I will love you. If you make it super messy I will love you a little less, but I still encourage you to do it. Even if you don't want to hardcore challenge them into a case debate, you better be reading some pretty good defense on case, or the affirmative is going to walk all over you.


 * Kritiks:** Only read these if you know what you are doing. Reading a Kritik as a CP is almost never a good idea. There is no world of the alternative, and I am sick and tired of people reading a Kritik like it was Resolved: The United States federal government should end capitalism, biopower, etc. If the neg is winning substantial case turns to the affirmative with the Kritik then they don't need a mystical world where all of those troubles are solved. However, the negative shouldn't get complacent. I want to see some serious accusations about why the affirmative is severely messed up. I know this sounds pretty neg biased, but don't worry affirmative, I will listen to all of your generic or otherwise answers to Kritik's, and I will evaluate them fairly.


 * Intervention:** Clash is absolutely essential. If you don't tell me why I should look at a certain piece of evidence, I probably won't, and if I do, I probably won't evaluate it highly. Line by line debate is very important, and implied clash needs to be executed properly to be efficient and legitimate for me. Other than that, I will read evidence, but warrant comparison definitely shapes how I read the evidence. ONE GOOD CARD IS BETTER THAN TEN BAD CARDS.

1. Be clever 2. Make me laugh 3. Do something I'm not expecting in cross examination that makes me paying attention worthwhile 4. Be clear 5. Work in some movie reference during either a speech or in cross - x (if it sounds forced don't do it)
 * Easy Ways to Get Speaker Points:**

Feel free to ask me any other questions you may have. I'm pretty friendly, and I was in a rush when I wrote this, so I know a lot of stuff is missing. Debate is one of the best things I ever did, so have fun with it.