Doherty-Powell,+Sean

I debated for four years at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation in Minnesota from 2010-2014. I competed on the national circuit for three of those years and went to the TOC my senior year.

I would like to think that debate is for the debaters to argue the topic the way they want and thus would like to think i'm a pretty tab judge. I'll do my absolute best to decide the round based on the flow and leave my opinions out of the round. That said there are definitely some preferences I have that could potentially affect the way I decide the round. Oh, also, as a first year out most of these preferences I have are based on my debate career and will might potentially change as I judge, I'll do my best to keep this updated.

I mostly evaluate the round on a truth-testing paradigm, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Speed: Speed is fine, I've yet to hear a debater I can't keep up with as long as their clear, but the faster you are the more clarity is necessary. I'll yell clear as many times as necessary but I might get pissed and dock speaks. Slow down for tags, author names, texts, anything you think is really important.

I'll call evidence if they'res conflict over what the evidence means or if a debater asks me to call it during a speech.

Theory: I debated theory a lot while i was debating and have no particular preferences for any specific theory positions. I'm fine with theory being run as a strategic tool, but i'f you run it poorly i'm probably gonna be mad. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVIs.

Kritiks: I ran a lot of kritiks my senior year especially my senior year. I love a good kritik debate. That said i'm not that well versed in some kritikal arguments so you'll have to clearly explain the arguments. As with all arguments if i don't understand them I wont vote for them. Ones I am familiar with are Foucault, Agamben, Kappeler, Nietzche, Security, Terror Talk, Neo-colonialism, and Cap Ks. Just because I'm familiar doesn't mean your arguments don't require full explanation. If I don't think someone could understand your argument solely based on your explanation in the round, I wont vote for it.

Policy Args: It's 2014 go for it.

Presumption/Skep/Permissibility: I default presuming aff but very rarely do I think there is no risk of offense on the flow, I will vote on a risk of offense. Skep/permissibility run as either positions or triggers are fine. I actually find some of these debates interesting if done well. (Well done skep triggers are not the typical "they proved my framework wrong/raised a procedural issue with my framework so therefore skep" but actual skeptic challanges that prove the impossibility of ethical theories.)

Other things: I believe the round exists for debaters, so have fun! If you're having fun, whether thats extremely competitive debate or laid back discussion, I'll probably have fun and be more likely to give good speaks.

Be nice to each other. I understand debate is a competition and it's your job to win so I'm totally fine with you being aggressive and competitive. I trust that you're mature enough to know the line between being competitive and being mean. If you're mean to your opponent im gonna be mean to you.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or e-mail me at seandohertypowell@gmail.com