MacDonald,+Sean

Background: I have debated policy for 4 years at Boston College. I mostly go for policy arguments, but also go for K arguments occasionally. Overview: I'll listen to anything. I will try to evaluate arguments based on your framing and will do everything I can to avoid inserting myself into the debate. I default to a policy making perspective presuming USFG action and the defense of a topical plan. However, I can be persuaded otherwise and am happy to listen to any style of debate.

Paperless: I won't take prep for flashing. Flash me cards so there are no shenanigans--I won't reread evidence unless I would have called for the cards in a debate where I didn't have a speech doc.

Clarity: I expect you to be clear. I will yell clear twice, and if you do not clear up I will put my pen down and stop flowing.

Evidence: Evidence quality outweighs quantity. Quality evidence rewards good research practices which I think would solve a lot of debates problems. I think the best part of debate is research and learning and putting in the work to develop arguments that have the potential to win close debates with a lot of clash. I only tend to read evidence in the places where it matters most i.e what questions do I have to answer to decide this debate?

K: I will listen to them, but do not not expect that I have an deep understanding of the literature. If you want to read a K, I expect that you will explain what it means, how it controls framing, if it turns case, etc. If you have a lot of depth in your analysis, it will help you tremendously. Also, there needs to be some impact analysis.

DA/Case: I'm a good judge for this strategy, make sure you argue turns case and do a lot of comparison, don't just dump cards. I like this type of debate a lot.

Topicality: I think that teams should advocate for a topical USFG plan, but if you decide to perform or run an advocacy, I will keep my presuppositions out of the debate as best I can. IMPACT your voters, compare standards, tell me HOW MUCH fairness vs HOW MUCH education and WHY I value one or the other. Also, slow down if your blocks have an argument or two that needs to be flowed per sentence on the T flow, I'd be lying to you if I said I could flow every little analytic. That being said, I'll vote on topicality. Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I defer to reasonability.

Condo: Limited conditionality is acceptable. But I think that if the number of options read is greater than 1 or if the option advanced contradicts the thesis of a disadvantage, I err aff. However, I will listen to a debate on condo.

Theory: One nice thing about me is that I have very few predispositions on counterplan theory. Tech your hearts out. I won't be able to evaluate theory well if you don't impact it.