Luechtefeld,+Sean

Sean Luechtefeld

A NOTE ABOUT ME: I debated for three years for Florida State (2004-2007) and then coached for two years at Wake Forest (2007-2009). I'm currently pursuing a Ph.D. at the University of Maryland, where there is no policy debate program. This means I'm somewhat of a free agent - that's important for you because since I don't have my own team affiliation, I go to debate tournaments when I can, but don't do a great job keeping up with the nuances of the arguments throughout the year. Therefore, doing a bit of work to "tell the story" will bode well for you.

GENERALLY SPEAKING: I am open to and willing to hear any “type” of argument (policy, critical, performance, etc.), and I especially find “alternative” formats of debate exciting and entertaining. By this, I mean that if I am in the back of a room where two teams have agreed that the debate should be about the topic or if one or the other is a performance team, I’ll likely enjoy the debate. HOWEVER, having said that, I will say I find it very difficult to evaluate “clash of civilization” debates (i.e. Aff reads their heg/nuke war scenarios, Neg says debate should be about participation in the activity). If you’re going to engage one of those alternative frameworks, be sure as hell that you know why what you do makes some substantive change and why that change can’t happen through whatever it is the other team is doing.

THEORY: I don’t like to vote on theory. I will, but I don’t want to. If you’re going to have a theory debate, it should be really well-developed as opposed to blippy and unclear. It should also probably be a little slower than the rest of the debate. I also think theory arguments should be reciprocal. If your aff is vague and shifty, their CP/K/whatever can be equally as vague and shifty.

KRITIKS: I like critical arguments, with a few caveats. First, I think the K should have an alternative. You need to be able to explain REALLY WELL what that alternative is/does/means. Even if the alt is “do nothing,” I want to know what “do nothing” really does. Second, I think theory arguments on the K are fine, but you should read the above—those arguments are reciprocal. I will also become frustrated with super-generic arguments. If you’re running the same Normativity arguments that you ran for the past 10 years and did no topic-specific research, I will find it obnoxious.

TOPICALITY: I think T is a voter, mostly for education. Your fairness arguments probably won’t get you far. It will be hard to convince me that T isn’t a voter. Also, if you want to win on something other than in-round abuse, show me what it is that the aff justifies. Don’t just assume that because “they could have run x argument which is bad for debate” means that I’ll err negative.

A NOTE ABOUT FRAMEWORK DEBATES: Many debaters assume that because they read a critical argument, that team is (a) unfair and abusive and/or (b) not competitive. My feelings on “a” are the same as any other “abuse” argument (see topicality). As for competition, don’t just pull out your framework block because they read the kritik. Short of convincing me otherwise, I will default to looking at the plan and comparing it to the status quo or an alternative. That alternative, for me, doesn’t need to be a policy option. Therefore, the alternative can still allow you to weigh your impacts against theirs, and I think debaters who say otherwise (in most cases, anyway) are just being lazy.

OTHERS: DO use your cross-ex time effectively. DO speak clearly. DO treat each other with respect. DO NOT be unclear. DO NOT assume I know all the literature on the topic. DO NOT be disrespectful to me or the other debaters. DO NOT try to make your opponents look stupid in lieu of making real arguments…really, you’ll just look like a moron.