Hammond,+Sean

Sean Hammond Email: seanh916@gmail.com
 * Experience: ** Debated for four years in high school for University high school and now coach Eastside high school.

Now going into my second year out of high school debate and now coaching, I have come to realize the shift from being in the front of the room spreading to being in the back flowing others. I’ve debated all four years of high school at University high school of the humanities and did pretty well broke at many national tournaments. I’ve switched and done every speech except the 2AC my partner was just better at it, I still understand how all the speeches go and what is needed to win the round. My paradigm is going to tell you what I like and dislike and how to win my ballot if I’m ever in the back of the room.

**Cross ex**: Cross-ex should always be viewed as more speech time for whoever is answering the question. This is your time to explain to the judge and the other team your argument and to correct any misunderstanding. Do what you do best, if that means long explanations that you think is necessary go right ahead. The other team should try to shut you up or just not answer question.

**Spreading**: I’ve fine with spreading just be clear, it is necessary to slow down on theory if you think you may go for it later in the round.

**Counterplan**: I learned a lot from my high school coach Kurt Shelton that there are a couple a ways to debate the CP on the NEG and easy ways to answer it on the AFF. On the aff the perm should always have a solid net benefit that is a disad to why the CP can’t solve. Also there should be a theory (condo, agent Cp bad) and a solvency deficit as offense. Being a 1AR in high school and college three things I always go for the perm, theory, solvency deficit. Everything else on the flow doesn’t matter if you’re winning those arguments. When your Neg the cp must be competitive or the perm would always solve. The disad to the perm should not be just theory but a reason to reject it, always have a internal net benefit to the CP and external one such as (XO prez power NB and ptx).

**Policy framewor**k: I honestly don’t care about this as much as a lot of other people. I would say I’m in the middle ground on the issue of excluding performance/ k positions. I feel like debates get muddle to easily and good arguments are dropped to often on this flow, which leaves me to do work. If your reading policy framework and argue that this is the only thing you had to read it will be a uphill battle to win my ballot but that does not mean I will vote against you. Spin your story differently and read disads to why their methodology is bad.

==== **Topicality**: My default paradigm for evaluating topicality is on competing interpretations. I have debated small affs and large stick affs and have always have had to answer T. I do find the argument “being reasonably topical” a decent argument just impact why is it good to be it. Topicality should be framed as a DA with specific analysis and impacts to the voters like education and fairness. I need to hear an impact to topicality, tell me why education is important and why fairness in this debate round is key to future discussions. ====


 * Theory**: I don’t like theory debates and would prefer not to listen to it in the 2NR or 2AR unless it’s the only thing going for you. I view theory the same way as topicality. I think condo is good in certain situations but not all.


 * Disads**: I like all disads that have a really good story. I’ve gone for politics throughout high school and college, the best thing to do in front of me is to have a overview no matter what speech and don’t be messy on the flow. Do the impact debate on the impact debate. Lol. The aff should always use case as leverage and outweigh the disad unless it solves your impacts if it does read add on to outweigh it more.


 * Kritik**: I’ve debated the k many times in high school and I think I’m decent enough to be in the back of the room for most k’s so on this note im going to agree with my friend luis on this “ I do hold a high threshold with the critique since I want to see a good K round. This means that the link has to be specific and articulated well enough throughout the whole round; advantage links are always preferred along with links predicated off of their discourse whether in-round or in their evidence. The alternative has to be articulated well and used offensively, tell me why they can’t access the permutation and why the alternative solves the critique. You don’t always need an alternative to run a critique, a link and impact strategy can work fine. There has to be impact comparison as well, especially if the aff is allowed to weigh their impacts versus the K. The alternative doesn’t have to be in the 2nr but you have to make sure that you explain the links well enough to make them case turns. Floating PIK’s are usually bad and allow the aff to get a lot of permutation ground since you are conceding that the affirmative can be a good idea combined with the alternative. If you do go for a Floating PIK argument then explain the procedure in which the alternative works and why it needs to be first. Vague alternatives seem like a defensive theory argument and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is offensive enough. Do not tell the K team that they have to defend a policy option since like I said before I will not vote on any arguments that silence/excludes people’s voices in a debate round.”


 * Performance**: I’m cool with it I read one before I’ve also debated against it and read more then policy framework good. So please if you’re going to read a performance aff in front of me tell me my role as a judge that is all.