Foley,+Sean

Sean Foley:

I debated at Johns Creek High School for three years, and just graduated.

Be respectful. Debate isn't about showing that you're smarter than somebody, although sometimes it can feel that way. Condescension can only make you look inexperienced or immature to a judge, and ironically, often makes judges look down on you. I understand cross-ex occasionally getting a tad heated, but asking a great question nicely is SO much more intimidating/impressive. Disrespecting other debaters is disrespecting the activity itself.

__Counterplans__ I dislike consult/condition counterplans but, as with any counterplan, if you think you can win theory, then by all means run them. If the nature of the competition of the counterplan is dubious, such as through a delay or slight uncertainty, you are going to have a tougher time defending its viability to me.

__Kritiks__ I like Ks. I'm open to both policy and K arguments. I love the cap K and I'm pretty comfortable with most of the more common critiques. I like discourse/language Ks too. For more complicated or uncommon critiques-just explain them well. K debate is NOT about spewing vague terms and confusing the other team, it's just as logical and cohesive as any other type of argument. I'm fine with the tricky K arguments but the core of your argument should be more substantive than that. Ks are better the more specific they are to the affirmative. Generic Ks are fine, just convince me that it links to the aff and you're not just talking about Heidegger because you like talking about Heidegger. Extremely specific Ks are SO awesome, read them if you can. I like K affs too, I read a couple last year, just make sure the discussion you're having has to do with the resolution.

__Theory__ You're going to have a LOT of trouble convincing me that theory is a reason to reject the team and not the argument. Don't go for theory as a way out. I think of theory as a constraint on what a team can do in a round, NOT as a strategic way to weasel out a victory. I'm open to most theory arguments though as long as they're not downright stupid (i.e. RVI) I don't like when teams read as many theory violations as possible as a timesuck, and I'll give a lot of leeway to the other team's answers, even if they only read a few. Go for conditionality if the abundance of conditional advocacies actually made it unreasonably difficult to win, but otherwise it might be an uphill battle. 1 condo is fine, 2 is pushing it, 3 starts to get really sketchy.

__Topicality__ T is just theory for not meeting the resolution, and as such, I treat it a lot like I treat theory. It should not be a way out of the round, it should be a legitimate complaint about an aff that makes the topic less educational or more difficult to debate as a negative team. Please don't go for ASPEC.

__Miscellaneous__ Jumping files/paperless debate-I feel your pain; I've had my fair share of jumping crises, just be reasonable. Don't take ten minutes to jump a file. You should bring a viewing computer, otherwise you should jump it directly to the other team, which in general is a very bad idea. If a team brings a viewing computer, don't pester them to jump their speech to you directly. It honestly won't mess up your block prep, the 1NR has 11 minutes for goodness' sake. I haven't had much experience yet on this topic, so I probably won't know all of the abbreviations etc. that you do. I'll do my best to figure it out but it may help to explain your plantext a bit more. I'd like to think I'm a pretty normal judge, just debate how you normally would and you'll be fine. I hope the above helps, and if you have more specific questions I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts.

Happy debating!