Paradigm

Sebastian Glos
Lake Highland Prep

Hello, I am Sebastian (He/Him)

Lake Highland Prep ‘21

Florida State University ‘25

Please try and create a speech drop for doc sharing before the round, but if not include these emails on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com

For the best prep in the world checkout:

prepsync.net

prepsync.net

prepsync.net

prepsync.net

prepsync.net

prepsync.net

Mini bio: Hey I am Sebastian, this is my 8th year in debate. I graduated with a finance degree from Florida State University. I have been coaching at Lake Highland Prep for the past four years. During my time as a competitor, I did PF and NFA-LD. I didn't have much success as a PF debater in high school. However, in college I qualified to the NFA-LD national tournament 4 times, won 2 tournaments, won the people's choice award, made the all american team, got some speaker awards, went undefeated in prelims at nationals, and got a round robin invite! In college I primarily read soft left / K(ish) affirmatives and went for T or the K almost every neg round. I have coached multiple teams to the TOC, over dozens of bids and coached the winners of Marist, Blue Key, Nova, The Tradition and Sunvite and my students have also reached elimination rounds at tournaments including TOC, Golden Desert, the Florida State Tournament, Lexington, Yale, Berkeley, and Durham. I’m also the owner of Circuit Debate Trainer, an online coaching service dedicated to helping students master Public Forum debate with personalized coaching, strategy development, and high-level competitive prep.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that offensive argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that offensive argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the offensive argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it, and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debates washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot.

Some specifics:

Flow: I think this is kinda important to include, but for case and rebuttal, I really only flow tags of arguments so please make sure that you slow down on tags, otherwise have fun spreading, i dont flow off a doc and never will. I really only open docs to see evidence for myself, and it won't impact the round unless someone tells me to eval a card.

Framing: I am great with any framing debate. I started reading more critical framings my senior year such as Derrida / Hospitality. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framing read. Otherwise, if two opposing framing mechanisms are read, I prioritize pre-fiat then post-fiat.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament, you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it. I default competing interps and no RVI’s. An RVI is a time skew argument, not about evaluating offense.

K’s: I think i am a good judge for evaluating the K if you know how to go for it. However, if you are just reading it to scare ur opponents and dont know what ur doing, ill be less inclined to vote for you. I'm tired of watching bad K debate in PF. I am familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho, virilio, security, and anthro.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution.

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that first.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:

- House music

- Tay-K

- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:

- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.

- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.