Fuller,+Sam


 * About me **: I debated for Omaha Westside in high school, graduating in 2012. I coached at Millard North in Omaha while I was in college, and now I'm in law school in Chicago, so I don't judge as much as I used to. I am prepared and willing to judge most any argument- in high school I ran arguments all across the spectrum, from politics DAs to affs without plan texts.

 **Non-traditional debate/affirmatives**: I am probably a good judge for your aff without a plan text/non-traditional aff. However, that doesn't mean I am a guaranteed vote in clash of civs-style debates- I think plan-based debate is extremely educational and valuable and there are plenty of good arguments for why it's important. Just because I did more non-traditional debate my senior year of high school doesn’t mean I’ll vote for your style and argument automatically. Tell me what your performance or advocacy means and why I should favor you. Don’t bother no-linking positions that obviously link to you. Debaters often aren’t overly shifty when they are passionate about the argument. I am very familiar with high theory-based arguments and ran them frequently.

 **Kritiks**: Ran them regularly in high school and I really enjoy a 1-off k debate. I think making a one-off k debate actually relate to the affirmative is extremely important. Obviously case-specific kritiks are the best for this, but more generic criticisms are fine if they are debated in the context of the affirmative. It is not very educational to talk on and on about your pet philosopher and never engage with the substance of the affirmatives you are negating. Case turns and arguments extrapolated from the kritik are impressive and will lead to good speaks.

I find myself voting aff on perms fairly frequently- it’s important to prove why the kritik is a reason to reject the specific affirmative that's in question in the debate.

If you are reading obviously contradictory positions with your k (like a cap bad k and an econ good DA) I will likely hold you to a higher standard to prove that condo is good and that your kritik alt works. It will tough, for example, for me to accept that we should reject capitalism at a personal level if you just told me we need to save the economy from collapse.

 I am pretty familiar with most kritik literature that is read in high school debate. I am least acquainted with psychoanalysis, so if you are reading that, it helps to go beyond the common buzzwords in your explanations.

 **Counterplans/Disads**: Traditional policy-style, plan-focused debate is educational and worthwhile. I like to see unique, aff-specific CPs. Well-researched and executed PICs are fun watch. A good politics DA debate is one of the best things that can happen in a round. It reflects well on the debaters when a team has clearly prepped out a rock-solid case neg and strategy to attack a policy affirmative- it shows dedication to doing the research that makes for really good debates.

 **Framework**: When read by the neg, kritiks probably aren’t cheating. Framework is your vision for the round and debate in general, which means that it can have significance elsewhere in the debate by cross-applying the arguments.

I vote negative on aff-exclusive frameworks a decent amount of the time, but I often just don't think it's that strategic if the neg has other arguments prepped that they could read. I understand that sometimes there aren't other answers to be made and an exclusive framework is the best and only thing that applies to the non-traditional aff you are negating, but a lot of the time there are more effective and more educational arguments to read. Teams that aren't reading plans usually have framework blocks prepped out in great detail- reading it on the neg often plays to the affirmative's strengths.

 **Topicality**: I default to reasonability if no one tells me anything else, but this obviously will change if you tell me to evaluate the T debate in another way. While obviously important in all of debate, offense on T is of course really important, especially for the aff in a situation where you have competing interpretations. For T arguments that are functionally framework, see the framework section above.

 **Theory**: My default setting is to reject the argument, not the team. If you want something different, really commit significantly to theory. It’s good for your case if you can show in-round abuse. Limited conditionality is probably good, plan-minus PICs are probably good. CPs probably don’t compete off of certainty. Obviously all of these defaults can change based on what happens in the debate.

 **Speed**: I can handle pretty much any speed. Remember there is a difference between reading fast well and just reading fast. The latter can hurt your speaks. If you’re unclear, I will say “clear” a couple times and then you’re on your own.

 **Paperless**: Prep stops when you are done prepping and just flashing. I'm all for paperless debate, but don't be a jerk and steal prep or take unreasonably long to flash. If this happens I will bring up the problem, then start running prep during flashing for that round (unless it's something like a computer emergency beyond your control, of course).

 If you have any questions that weren’t answered here, please ask. I like talking to debaters.

 **Other stuff:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Tag-team cross-x is fine, but never answering cross-x questions will hurt your speaks. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> I value spin over words on paper, especially for speaker points. Everyone can read cards, not everyone can make good arguments on their own. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Humor is a plus. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Be assertive, but respectful. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;"> Most of all, debate is something you should enjoy, learn from and feel passionate about. If you show those things in your debating, you’ll do well in front of me.