Farris,+Sean

Assistant Coach at Homewood-Flossmoor DePaul University 2016 Homewood-Flossmoor 2012

I am fairly open to any arguments. I debated for four years in high school, have been judging throughout college and am now an assistant coach so I am familiar with the mechanics of debate and relatively up to date with the community. My main stipulation as a judge is that if I don’t understand it then I won’t vote for it, explain your argument well and you should do fine.

Topicality and Theory: Comparative analysis is the most important part of a T/Theory debate for me, you should explain to me how I should evaluate the different standards, how they interact and which are more important. Potential abuse doesn't gain a lot of traction with me but if you can impact it well then I will vote on it.

Kritiks: I ran them fairly often in high school so I have a decent understanding of the common ones (i.e. Cap, Security, Nietzsche). If you are going for something new or escoteric please devote additional effort to explaining the thesis of the K. My weak spots in K theory include Baudrillard, Bataille and Wilderson.

Disads: Not much to say, make sure to articulate your link story.

Counterplans: Again not much, they need to solve case and be competetive with the aff.

Condo: Persuading me that two or less conditional advocacies are bad is an uphill battle.

Impact Calculus: Do it, and do it well. What I want in the 2AR/2NR is an understanding of why your side outweighs the other on probability, magnitude and timeframe.