Schleicher,+Jeremy

Hey! I was a policy debater for Cypress Bay HS for 4 years and the Director of Forensics for Lincoln High School. If I don’t mention it, that means I’m fine with it, and honestly, all of this is tentative, because if you can convince me to change something, I will. I’m not stuck in my (debate) ways.


 * __POLICY __**

**TOPICALITY:** I'll vote on T but you better be willing to spend most (read: all) of the 2nr on it. It’s simple, you drop T and you lose. You aren’t able to beat the neg’s T arguments and you lose. You win T and you’re not wasting our time with an untopical argument, I’m so proud (so no RVI’s y’all). On the note of losing to T, there are a select few T arguments that I feel are nonsensical, and I may very well disregard them (unless you sway me otherwise, or, of course, the Aff just drops it).




 * THEORY **: I think theory has its place in debate, but it primarily should be used as a balancing mechanism for that particular round. Meaning that if you’re Neg you’re not going to win a round because you sufficiently proved that the Aff had much more time and ability to prep than you – that will happen every round. Run it when someone runs 7 conditional arguments, or something equally abusive.

 **KRITIKS:** They’re fun. But you need to understand what you’re running, and realize that Kritiks are (for the most part) legitimate philosophies. So if you run a K, you need to (a) understand the Kritik completely, (b) be able to properly explain it (more on this later), and (c) don’t do anything contradictory in round that’s opposed to the fundamentals of what they read. Clearly explain the link and explain why it is specific to this round, and how this is not just your generic neg strat (even if it is, you better be running it in that round for a reason). Basically all K’s are fair game, no matter how insulting they could be deemed, just make sure you handle it with tact (more on this later as well).

Speaking of link stories, enjoy the GIF I use to describe them.
 * TRAD STUFF: **Stock Issues are a thing, and I’ll weigh them appropriately in a trad debate. That being said, the Aff speak first (congrats, you just learned something new!), they can set the tone for the round. So if they want to run a Kritikal case, fine, it’s no longer a trad oriented debate. But if the neg is able to convince me why Stock Issues are still important, then there ya go. No, I do not think that every case needs a set plan. But you need to be topical. Cross that bridge however you see fit. Make sure, like with K's, that your DA's have a solid link.



 **__LINCOLN DOUGLAS__**

Again, I'm mainly a CXer, so I’m not that familiar with LD specific arguments, so make sure what you’re saying is clear. Also because of my CX background, I lean more toward the Policy realm of arguments regarding solvency, impacts, etc. So if you’re good with those/like them, run them. See above for my philosophy on Kritiks/Theory. Somewhere along the line RVI's (Reverse Voting Issues) became kind of acceptable in LD, at least for some competitors/judges, but not for this one. If, for example, you're Aff and prove that you're topical, good for you. Yes, T is a major voting issue, but proving that you are topical is your job, it's not going to win you the round.




 * __GENERIC STUFF FOR EVERYONE (for the most part) __**

Debate is about fundamental knowledge, and while cards are integral, you do not need evidence for every single thing. Use logic, and convince me why it’s logical. Analytics are not only welcome, they will boost your speaker points.



On the note of speaker points, please be polite and respectful. A bit of sass is always appreciated, this is debate after all, but overall be good competitors and good partners. Doing so will increase your speaker points. Not doing so will decrease them (whoa). For proper sass, let's turn to our former president. ...................................... ........ .  ................ .....

I’m completely fine with speed, but you should not be outright spreading if you’re not reading a card (meaning, the last 3 rebuttals can be fast, but don’t spread them). This also means you need to slow down on taglines and authors. If I don’t get that, I don’t flow it, and it makes it difficult for me to vote for you if I only flowed 60% of your cards.



On the note of cards, if you say “mark the card there” or some variant (please don't say “clip/cut the card there", those are two very different things), you (or your partner) need to physically mark the card, and then immediately flash your opponents a copy of the marked cards. And competitors, it’s in your best interest to point out if they are marking cards before a warrant. I’m normally able to catch it, but point it out anyway.



<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I do not take prep time for flashing, but I only stop timing prep when you stop typing/writing. On the note of flashing, give them all the cards you’re going to read. This is a debate, if there’s a flaw there, let them find it, or don’t use flawed evidence. And don’t scroll beyond what they’re currently saying (i.e. if they’re currently reading from page two, you shouldn’t already be scanning page five). Also with prep, I'm fine with "flex prep" (asking questions during your prep time) as long as both teams are ok with it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Cross-X stuff: Only questions. That’s the purpose. I’m totally fine (and even look forward to) the inevitable “Is that a question?” Please face me, not each other at all times while speaking, even during CX when you’re talking to each other. CX is a 3 way conversation between aff, neg, and (the silent, but ever attentful) judge. Don’t close me out. I’m fine with open (group/partner/whatever) cross-x in Policy, its TEAM debate, y’all should be able to work as a team even in CX. But if you’re talking over your partner and not letting them answer, that’ll hurt you, or if you’re just letting your partner answer all the questions, that’ll hurt you. I want to see each debater exhibit their talents.

You need to explain things clearly throughout the entire debate, especially the 2NR and 2AR. Explain exactly why you should win and why they should lose. Think of it as that “Previously On…” segment at the beginning of TV shows (which no one really needs since we all watch 5+ episodes in a row anyway). Wrap the round up, don’t just assume if you see a clear win (or loss, you didn’t lose till I’ve signed my ballot, remember) that I see one. Basically, crystallize. **If you want to go for T in the 2NR you need to spend all 5 minutes on it.** If you don't do this, there is a high chance that you will lose the debate. You're basically claiming that this whole round was a sham since they weren't operating within the framework of the resolution, so why waste time in your last speech addressing anything else? You need that time to make your case.

If you have any questions (or just want to talk about stuff, preferably something of the nerdy variety), ask me before the round, or when you see me around the tournament.

And you can always email me at jschleicher@lhsdebate.com.

Ready, set, flow!

~Jeremy Schleicher