Sedelmyer,+Chris

Debater: Cathedral Prep, 1999-2003; Wake Forest, 2003-2007 Coach: Vanderbilt University, 2008-2010; Montgomery Bell Academy, 2010-2011

I prefer debates that are resolved by determining whether the topical affirmative plan is preferable to the status quo or a competing policy option. I find that in critical debates, I often do not understand why the negative’s alternative is preferable to the affirmative plan. However, I welcome debate that clearly articulates my role as the judge and the process that I should use when signing the ballot.

I vote on topicality. I can be persuaded by reasonability arguments made by the affirmative in relation to their interpretation of the resolution, especially in situations where the negative’s interpretation lacks true definitional support.

Theory: be clear and think “I need to go somewhat slow”. Seriously. I tend to lean negative on questions of Conditionality and PICs. International, Condition plan on X, Consult, and States CPs are more suspect. With the exception of topicality and instances of true affirmative plan-shifting, I rarely believe that any theory argument is a reason to vote against the opposing team. Please keep this in mind when impacting your theory arguments.

Cross-ex is too often spent both asking and answering questions that become largely meaningless in the overall scheme of the debate. Have a strategy and use the time to *make arguments*. Effective use of cross-ex is a good way to increase your speaker points.