Phil Sailer
High School: Glenbrook South
Debated: 4 Years
College: University of Wisconsin at Madison

If you only have 5 seconds and you see my name on the pairing here is what you need to know. My bread and butter is the politics DA and a counterplan but feel free to run anything. I am ok with speed and debate language but keep it to a minimum. Overall I am very open to different arguments but especially in the world of Kritiks you need to explain how it reacts with the case.

If you have more time:

I am open to really any type of argument although that does not mean I understand each type of argument the same. I was a 2A in high school and ran a heg aff every aff round that I can remember so things like heg, politics, and PICs are things that need little background information. However things like epistemology, discourse, and representations are things that, although I debated a lot, you will need to further explain. That being said I think with any type of argument the best types of debate are the ones where the negative team clearly presents a link to the case and how the impact interacts with the aff. That being said I'll talk about the specific arguments.

Topicality-I have not judged any high school debates on this topic (High School Res 2010-2011) so it is going to be imperative that you explain topicality. I would say I default to a competing interpretations paradigm but again that is something that is usually debated in the round. I would say what you need to persuade me is what you need to persuade 90% of the other judges in the pool. A good case list, grounds, limits, all of that jazz. Make sure that if you are going for T that you have the best definition for the round. Although I HATE little T args that are said for 5 seconds in the constructives that turn into 5 minutes in the rebuttals don't drop them because if they develop and are throughly explained I will pull the trigger.

Theory-Being a 2A I am probably more aff leaning on theory args but I rarely like to vote on theory. Obviously if it is your only shot or the other team just messed up on it then go for it but you should be able to clearly tell me what the other team did to put your team at a disadvantage or else there is no reason to vote on it. Also there is a tendency to break out 6 theory args in one 2AC. Thats fine but just make sure I can get reason 3 as to why negative fiat is bad.

Counterplans- I went to GBS. I love counterplans and PICs. Make sure that there is a specific counterplan text throughout the round. I don't want any trickery from either side on this issue. That being said the best debates are ones where the negative is able to find the difference between the CP and Plan and exploit it and when the aff has a clearly developed argument to defend that piece of the plan. CP theory is the same as theory above.

DA's-Regular DAs are good. Politics DA's are even better. Hopefully, however, there are some case specific DA's that you all have cut because I find those to be the best. Again I have not judged on this topic so you are going to have to explain anything that maybe I haven't heard before. Also in the last few rebuttals find out what you need to win on the DA. We have all heard Magnitude, Probability, and Timeframe but if you are losing the link level of the debate the impact calculus will get you no where. Obviously make some impact claims and extend it but don't feel like you have to just because you sound cool. Win all the parts of the debate and you will probably win the round.

Kritiks-This is the argument that I am "least" fond of. I am not one of those judges that will reject you if you come up with a different framework but your kritik is going to need to be explained more indepth then maybe a politics DA. That being said, some of the most fun rounds I have seen or judged have been ones where the negative knows their K up and down and the aff totally screws it up. Like with any other negative position tell me why I look to your "framework" first and why the case links and why the impacts to your K matters. You do that and you are in good shape.

Speaker Points-I don't throw around 30's or 29.5's. You have to be really good. I think the average is a 28. Speaker points are given based on a combination of presence, argument choice, politeness to your opponent, partner, and me, and finally clarity. Do you best but don't force it and "go for what you're winnin" and you should be good.

Last tips before the round. Take the debate out of my hands. Literally. I don't want to have to read your cards and try and teach myself about your aff because you failed to explain it. With any judge, you don't want to leave interpretation to them. Force him or her to think about the argument in your way with your interpretation of the evidence. That way you and I will not have to wait an hour for me to decide and we can all get food. Good Luck and Go Badgers.