Sam Shircel

Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics and Student Congress

Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker

Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am not the biggest fan of kritiks. On flows, I usually look to the real world arguments first (DAs, Counterplans, On-Case)

Theory: I am not the biggest fan of theory. I consider myself more real world in the argumentation. As a policymaker, I want to see which side provides the best world view.