Sabin,+Conner

Conner Sabin

A little bit of background, I debated for 3 years in High School at University High School, three years in college, and now compete on the national circuit at University of Puget Sound in Parli.

General Themes Regarding my Judging Philosophy: 1. In complete honesty, I debate in Parli, which is at best diet Policy, and at worse a horrible monstrosity combination of progressive LD and CX without cards. While I am 90% sure that I can keep up with you, maybe go around 80-90% of your general speed through the body of cards, and slow down on tags. I'm sorry if this inconveniences anyone, but I figured it would be better to let this be known, so that I can be a better judge for you all. This will make my flow a lot cleaner, avoids some of the messier aspects of the drop debate, and also makes it so you are less likely to hate me for making an incorrect decision at the end of the debate. 2. Humorous jabs at your opponents or yourself are encouraged, and will garner you speaker points. I'll reward pop culture references with .1 speaker points. 3. Don't be a dick. Feel free to go for the jugular, but everyone in the round knows what too aggressive is, and you should avoid it. 4. Please repeat every important text (Plan, CP, T interp, K alt, etc) twice, just to make sure I have the correct wording, or give me a copy. This may seem old school or whatever, but I want to make sure that I have the details of your advocacy or whatever you want to go for at the end of the debate. T: I'm a big fan of the T debate. I think that this is one of the most strategic positions in Policy Debate. I think that the focus on this sheet of paper should be on how your interp/counter-interp gains better internal links to your standards, and how those should be evaluated in the lens of the Topicality debate. RVI's are stupid, don't go for them. CP: I love the CP debate. Analysis as to why you capture specific Advantages or turn others will be very convincing in my book. Generally, I will err neg on CP theory, unless there is an outrageous amount of abuse, in which case, go for Condo/whatever. I see most issues of theory, like process and consult CP's as a reason to generally reject the argument rather than the team, unless there's warranted and detailed analysis on why me allowing that to happen is bad for debate. I'm also probably more friendly to text comp as well, if that's your thing. DA: Obviously, if this is your thing, play to your strong suits. Who doesn't love a good Politics debate? Just make sure you have all the crucial parts, and tell me why the DA o/w or turns case. Overviews on every segment will only increase your chance of winning. Impact calculus on this debate is crucial to me, and can make or break the debate for you depending on the articulation of the internal links to the impacts. I'm very skeptical of assigning zero risk to a DA. K: Love the K. But don't assume I understand your lit base. Make sure that you can clearly articulate the links to the K, and do topical overviews or an overview that crystallizes the thesis of the K. Not only does it make it far easier for me to understand as a judge, but it also allows for more 2NR/2AR spin, which can only be advantageous to you.

Any other questions, feel free to ask in round. I will do my best to answer them, and also intervene as little as possible in the debate. Make sure y'all have fun, that's what this is all about.