Shircel,+Anton

Anton Shircel

__Coaching:__ Assistant Coach/Judge for Sheboygan South - 2004-2006 Assistant/Head Coach Neenah - 2006-2010 Assistant Coach Waukesha South - 2012-2014 Head Coach Sheboygan North - 2014-Present

__Experience:__ Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002) Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, 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 a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

__Theory:__ Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.