Parker,+Benjamin

I'm Ben Parker. I debated at Norman High School (OK) for four years. I qualified for the NSDA National Tournament in USX, LD, and Duo my sophomore, junior, and senior year, respectfully. I now debate British Parliamentary style at Cornell University.

__**Short Version:**__
 * Engage with different arguments instead of trying to avoid them. This means weighing between the arguments.
 * Make sure arguments are well warranted and you do not give me some brief argument that is not well explained. As a judge, I am always thinking about how well explained an argument is.
 * Go a moderate speed (I'd say a 6-7 out of 10 probably). I did not spread nor compete against people who spread, so my threshold is probably lower than some judges.
 * Make sure arguments, especially in rebuttals, are well organized.
 * Do not say anything racist, homophobic, etc.
 * Have fun. Be proud of the debate win or lose. Ask questions if you have any.
 * Most importantly, try to learn something from each round.

__**Specifics:**__

__Round Evaluation:__ I prefer a topical debate over a more theoretical one. However, that does not mean I will not listen to one (I will explain the caveats to this though later on). I will vote for the debate that better presents and generates offense and weighing this offense to one's opponent's arguments. If you do not do any comparative analysis, it becomes incredibly difficult for me to adjudicate the round. Make it easy for me.

__Speed:__ Be as clear as possible, especially if you speak quickly. For most LDers, clarity is a huge issue. Please clearly state authors for cards. With this said, some of you are clear and can spread. However, I do not have a ton of experience with fast debates, so I would advise going slower with me than for some judges.

__Framework:__ I need some form of weighing mechanism clearly outlined in the debate. I do not think values are super important, nor do I think debates should be won at the value level. Give me reasons to prefer X weighing standard (whether a criterion or a standard) and how you best achieve this standard and linking to this standard. You cannot simply say, "My standard outweighs." Do some comparative analysis.

__Extensions:__ It is important to extend your argumentation. This is not simply saying "extend" to me though. Defend it, warrant it, and weigh it, or else I question if you truly do "extend" said argument.

__Kritics:__ I enjoy kritical stances on AFF and NEG. However, please assume I have not read the literature and explain it all clearly to me, especially if this is some dense philosophical material. This does two things: (1) I can better understand your argumentation and (2) I know that you actually understand the arguments you are making and are not just botching some philosopher's beliefs. If things are not explained clearly, it does not make it an automatic drop, but it may make some argument you heavily rely on not as persuasive to me. Furthermore, you should have a a strong alternative that is not just "reject the AFF". Additionally, challenge the conclusions of your opponents case as well with your K and not just the methodology. I think Ks can provide a fascinating insight in a debate round as to how we understand resolutions.

__Disad/Counterplan:__ Go for it. If it is a rather reasonable disad, then even better! However, don't go to some extreme such as nuclear war impacts for outweighing. Have a clear link story that gets to more realistic impacts. Counterplans need to have a clear plan text, solvency, etc. They need to have net benefits (i.e. disad, kritical attack on the aff, etc.) and comparative. Avoid PICs due to the lack of clash with AFF advocacy.

__Theory:__ You can run theory in front of me if there is some clear abuse, although that is pretty subjective. You do not need a set shell, it just needs to be well explained/warranted. Do not try and do a jargon heavy theory debate because I will get lost most likely. You are more than welcome to have competing views on debate, but I will vote more on how reasonable it is. For me personally, I prefer education over fairness in a debate. Proactive theory as an offensive strategy is almost always going to result in a loss with low speaks. Spec, A-Spec, etc. are not viable strategies to win in front of me. T or Extra Topical should be extremely well explained. These theory strategies should ONLY be used as a check of legitimate abuse.

__Performance Cases:__ Although I did acting events, I am not experienced with performative cases and thus opt not to hear them. Emotion does little to move me towards your ballot to be honest. I want to hear logos with profound rhetoric.

__Speaker Points:__ I want to see someone make my job easy for me. That entails the following: (1) weighing offensive arguments, (2) speaking clearly, and (3) having a mastery of the English language with your use of rhetoric. A 30 is someone who speaks perfectly, and I mean perfectly.

__What NOT to Do:__ Skep, Tricks, anything without an advocacy, new arguments in 2AR theory, AFC.

DO NOT be racist, homophobic, etc. You will drop the ballot and get 20 speaks. If you worry about an argument coming off this way, then I highly recommend you not running it.

DO NOT be rude to your opponent, audience members, or judges. If it is bad enough, I will drop the ballot. Debate is a safe, positive learning environment, so let's keep it that way.