Zeppos,+Ben

Ben Zeppos--Assistant Coach--University School of Nashville Email>>Flashing. Include me on the email chain: (bzeppos@gmail.com). Four years in HS policy. No debate in college. Studied Comp. Lit. at Princeton (2010), concentrating on Latin, Greek, and German. Coached policy debate at USN since 2014. I am familiar with all of the current trends and issues in debate. **Topicality/Framework:** I enjoy when either team (AFF or NEG) advances a creative and formal interpretation, applies it to the debate, and explains why its interpretation is preferable as a paradigm (however you might ask me to define and evaluate it). I love new and ingenious framework arguments and evidence. I am bored by the sterile "go-to" cards one is likely to hear and particularly by cards from debate coaches. **Kritik:** Assume the responsibility of defining your terminology, then apply it with conviction and insight. **Theory:** If you aren’t comfortable devoting legitimate time in the second rebuttal then don't make the argument. Time spent on theory is typically better spent winning the substance of the flow/debate. I will vote on theory if you make it the substance of the flow/debate or substantially relate it to the flow/debate. I have sympathy for: (1) theoretical arguments that you can't win the flow/debate without; (2) arguments against multi-plank CPs when # of planks >> sum of aff advantages+add-ons; (3) any theory argument you can justify without reading blocks.