Sheaff,+Simon

Simon Phillip Thomas Sheaff Dowling Catholic High School 2013 Baylor University 2017 UPDATED: 4/22/15 NOTE: If there is anything you think it would be helpful to have added to this wiki, let me know, I'll consider it!

I was a national circuit debater for four years in high school, with some success my senior year. I will be/am debating in college. So, as every other judge will tell you: Do your thing, below are my defaults, I’m tabula rasa, blah blah blah. When I was in high school, I had to do my own pref sheets. And I HATED philosophies like that. They are not helpful. I’m going to try to make mine more helpful then that, and not make you read “I’m okay with K’s but I’m not deep in the literature, so explanation is key, especially on the alt” crap for the 30th time since you started your pref sheet. No promises though

Short Version:

Delivery/Style: Go fast, I will yell clear if I have to. T: I have a love/hate relationship with squirlly affs that are *technically* topical - I love them because they're clever and I hate them because they are clever. DA: Go for it. Don’t be an idiot. CP: Cheating CPs are cheating, but most people get away with them. You know what I mean. Theory: I’M VERY BAD AT FLOWING THEORY. VERY BAD. But I like these debates, actually. Case: Case debates are good. Make fun of stupid things. Ks: I don’t really like judging these debates, but I won’t disregard them either, especially if it is an IR type K. But I have literally 0 idea what psychoanalysis means/is/if it means anything. Doesn’t mean I can’t be taught, but I need to to explain it in a counter-plan/disad type framework. Other: Swag is good, douche is bad. Cross-X was always my favorite.

My favorite high school judges: Calum, Ewald, Kenyon, Travis Henderson, Gobberdiel, Pipken

Long Version:

Overarching: The themes you will probably see throughout this philosophy are that: 1) I love debate and I can’t do high school debate any more. That means I am relying on YOU to make it better. 2) Debate is good when it makes you work hard. I spent the first 2 and a half years of my debate career doing nearly no work. Then I started doing work and I came to love debate so much more. I will reward teams that I think have worked hard.

Delivery/Style: I believe in fast, clear debate. I can't stand to listen to something I can't understand, so I will yell clear until you are. I am also not great at flowing, so make sure you go a little slower on tags/analytics than you would have otherwise.

T: I ran squirrelly affs sometimes in High School. But I HATE it when other people do. I think the topic is chosen for a reason and you should try to beat people straight up. However, I like CLEVER affs, and I understand that this is a terribly unclear standard. I think if you defend a reasonable conception of the topic in a clever way, you should win. If you take the topic obviously out of context, people should go for T. If you’re neg, make the obvious T arguments, don’t sit back and think “oh, I bet they have a really good block to this.” However, you should keep in mind that I have done exactly 0 topic work for the high school topic, so I am not all up on what is actually topical. (If you were looking for a framework discussion, drop to "Kritiks")

DA: I mean, why not? I like a good generic DA if applied well to the case. I really like a good case-specific DA. There is such thing as 0 risk of a link.

My favorite argument in all of debate is the politics DA - not because I think it is the most strategic or coherent argument, but because it's the most fun for me. Thus, I want to see you go for politics well. But dear god do I not want to see you go for politics poorly. I'm not saying you have to be amazing at politics in order for me to enjoy it - but you should be able to pronounce the names of the people you're talking about, you should know the basic story of the DA, and you should probably have cut (or at least HIGHLIGHTED) some of the updates yourself. Please. I'm begging you. That means that the aff should make a fiat solves the link or intrinsicness argument on the DA. The neg will be all like: “Politics DAs are good, because they make us know current events.” Then the neg has to PROVE TO ME that they actually know something about current events as a result of the DA. Right here I am gonna put a carrot: In order to prove to me that you read my philosophy, you should work in the phrase: “Debate is War” into one of your speeches. (Both partners can do this). I will give you .3 higher speaks if you do.

CP: I mean, why not? I like CPs, especially tricky ones. Tricky ones are good usually because they require case-specific research. Fiating the affs internal links is HILARIOUS to me, and really strategic if you can get a NB (and assuming it’s not object fiat). Advantage CPs are also cool, especially tricky ones.

Now, Cheating CPs. You know what I mean. Consult, Conditions, Recommends, Process, Delay, Do the Plan But Vote Neg Counterplans. As a 2A, I think these CPs are cheating, unless you have a specific solvency advocate to the aff. That said, the aff would have to win theory (which is explained below) in order for me to get rid of it. It is probably a reason to reject the argument. PICs are probably okay, especially if they are specific to the aff. (Again, hard work)

Theory: I AM VERY, VERY BAD AT FLOWING THEORY. I JUST AM. I WILL TRY TO GET BETTER BUT YOU NEED TO SLOW DOWN SO I KNOW WHAT WORDS YOU ARE SAYING.

That said, I really like theory debates. I think debate is an awesome activity, I want to hear your arguments about what makes it good and bad. I don’t want you reading off your blocks for theory, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. (The best theory speech I ever saw was Jacob Hurwitz at the Michigan camp tournament when I was a sophomore. It was out rounds, so he had 3 judges. He went for Condo, spent 2 minutes winning the condo flow in general and then a MINUTE EACH talking to each judge as to why THEY should vote for him on Condo. That is a testament to knowing your judge well and a testament to knowing your argument well.) So go for the theory and tell me a story! I like stories.

THE KRITIK: DUN DUN DUN Most of you scrolled right to here, didn’t you? That’s okay, that’s what I did for judges too.


 * 1) Framework: So here’s the thing. I don’t like that the K exists. I would much rather just do straight up policy debate. But I have accepted that the K is here and it is here to stay. I’m not going to buy into your generic “K’s make debate hard” framework, but I will listen to your framework about HOW the K should operate in the round. I do not think that the aff automatically gets to weigh their impacts vs. the K, and I do not know why neg teams allow this to be the middle point. Aren’t you indicting the logic of their impacts?
 * 2) The K Proper: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON. You be using big words like “rhizomatic” and “superego” and I don’t know what those mean. I may agree with you, but you have to use stupid people words. This doesn’t count for the generic Ks like Cap and Security or really any IR or Reps K. But if you are talking Bowdriard or Delose and Gwattary or even Hydigger, then I don’t understand. I will probably start understanding better as I do more in college, but for now, I don’t just need explanation, I need a very simple explination. You should start the 2NC with: "THIS IS WHAT WE SAY IS BAD: __" and then "THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT__." If you don't do things like that, or explain your K in a disad/counterplan type way, I will most likely be confused and I don't tend to vote for the team that confuses me.
 * 3) Another problem that I have realized with the K is flowing. If your tag is a paragraph long, then I don't know what to write down. I'll try to get as much as possible, but you should either slow down so that I can get each part of the argument that your card makes or break it up some other way. Alternatively, you could not care that I don't have your 1NC tags down well and explain it very well in the block. But beware of that.
 * 4) Because I am so limited on the K, you should ask me before round how much I know about the K you are planning to run. I know some about some random Ks (I know some Bataille, I know some Virillio, I know more Nietzsche then I want to) that based on the above paragraph you would think I know nothing about. So you should ask and I will tell you my comfortableness with YOUR specific K.
 * 5) K affs - in my mind there are three categories -
 * 6) Performance: If your performance is tied in with an actual argument (see the “K Aff” section below) I will probably vote on it. If you just come in and dance and throw glow sticks at me while singing kumbayah and then expect to make that into an argument in the 2AC, I will probably NOT vote on it. I really really really really really want you to have a plan text (You MUST at LEAST have an “advocacy statement” or a Role of the Ballot) and it would be really really really really really really awesome if that plan text had something to do with the USfg, but I understand that sometimes that would actually be a performative contradiction to your argument. Your performance MUST be tied in to the topic in some way, but I think most performance teams do this already. All that said, I will be very sympathetic to framework arguments from the neg, because this is not what I think debate is. I will still vote for you if I have to, but to be honest, I will probably be trying not to. I know, that makes me the fascism that your aff is talking about and I wish I wasn’t such a bad judge, but I can’t get out of that mindset.
 * 7) Affs with K Advantages: These are totally okay. If you read a plan text that has the USfg do something, but your advantages are critical, I’m totally down. I would rather not vote on your in-round ethics, and there are good framework arguments about that, so if you can switch your aff up to actually be about solvency, read that one in front of me.
 * 8) "Project"/"Race"/"": My what a semester of college debate can do. I am not ready to say that I have changed my mind on these affs. I still think I lean slightly towards the framework arguments. I think that limits are a good thing, but the discussion of priviledge is also a good thing. I am much more open now to listening to these arguments. However, because I prefer the policy side, I think I will have a higher standard for "non-traditional" teams. This is not something that I am conciously assigning myself, but I know how I think and it's in a policy mindset. I think that my problem is I often can't see the argument form for non-traditional teams. I get the basics, but I don't understand why that means I should vote for you. If you can explain that to me, then it just becomes a question of how well you and the neg team handle framework.

Prep: No prep for flashing. For now. DO NOT STEAL PREP. My partner was notorious for calling people out on it, and as a judge I am more than willing to do it.

Other things:


 * 1) I really like it when teams are sneaky and strategic. It makes debate more fun.
 * 2) I really DISLIKE it when teams are douches to each other. I love swag, but don’t be mean, please. It makes me super uncomfortable and makes the activity worse.
 * 3) I really like it when teams challenge the underlying assumptions of the debate. Read Calum’s philosophy on this, it’s absolutely brilliant. My two cents worth would be what I always tell novices: ALL debate arguments are stupid. Your job, if you have never heard an argument before, is to take a step back, BREATHE, and think why this one is stupid.
 * 4) TRUTH > TECH. To a certain extent. New 2AR truth arguments won’t be evaluated, but just because you put on 6 blippy arguments against an argument that is just true, even if the aff *technically* drops one, it’s still a true argument. I recognize that this is pretty subjective and arbitrary. I also recognize that I don’t care. Forensics means the search for TRUTH, not the search for the best debater at spitting out one second sentences at 365 words a minute.
 * 5) I like spin. If you spin your evidence and the other team doesn’t respond to the spin, I won’t care that the spin isn’t directly in the card. HOWEVER, don’t lie to me about what a card says.
 * 6) Please flow. ‘nough said.
 * 7) It is impossible to define a “new argument.” If I think it is a logical extension of what they said before, it’s not new.
 * 8) It is equally difficult to define a new APPLICATION of an argument. As Calum Matheson says: //" My criteria for “new” applications of an argument: if I could see it coming when the team made the argument originally then their use of it later on is not new. I know this isn’t a perfect standard, but I can’t think of a better one. If a claim or reason is not made until the rebuttals then that component of the argument is new, but not necessarily the whole argument. It’s not enough to say “this is new.” You must say that that’s bad for some reason." //
 * 9) Use cross-X well. Oh man do I love a good CX. It makes me really excited to see a position systematically DESTROYED in CX. Pick a purpose for the CX and stick with it. Don’t jump around too much.
 * 10) I like what my former partner Sean Duff says: //“Carrot and Stick: Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)”// I won’t be doing the speaker point things per-se, but don’t say an argument was dropped when it wasn’t. It will hurt your speaks to some extent.
 * 11) I love debate statistics. That has nothing to do with the debate, but if you have a Google doc for the tournament or some cool website I haven’t heard of yet about debate, you should let me know.