Hand-Bender,+Ben

Ben Hand-Bender CX/LD debater in High School, Parli in College, CX/LD/PF/Congress/EX Judge and Coach Assistant Debate Coach at Denver East HS

__Overall Philosophy__ Generally speaking, I am "tab" and will go with whatever is argued in the round and will judge the round based on what I am told to judge the round on. That being said, I believe that very few High Schoolers argue Topicality or Theory well, and I am terribly un-fond/unconvinced by blippy frontlines, that have absolutely no accompanying analysis or connection to in-round specifics.

__Speed__ I flow fast, but am not THE fastest around and clarity matters heavily to me. I will give verbal cues if requested by debaters and allowed by tournament rules.

__Decorum/Ethics__ Respect is important to me, prioir to the round, during and after, and I detest rudeness (win with class). CX periods should be passionate but respectful, and I am fine with open CX (if tourny allows). I am fine with teams getting evidence from the opposition as they read it.

__Preferences__ 1) I have no preference concerning PICs, dispo, or conditional arguments (etc.), and will judge based upon analysis provided in the round. 2) I consider evidence clash and analysis very important, and will weigh these heavily if this is an issue in the round. 3) I DO have a preference for Kritikal arguments (on AFF and NEG), as I see debate as a performance and an important venue for advocacy. 4) I rarely see in-depth and complete post-fiat impact analysis, and hence often feel less convinced by these arguments (DO NOT READ AS: an unwillingness to vote as a policy maker [if told to do so], just a criticism of how many HS competitors present these impacts). 5) At national circuit tournaments, I believe that predictability generally checks Topicality abuse, and my default is to only vote on T if there is in-round abuse. (DO NOT READ AS: an unwillingness to vote on ANY T violation, as long as the analysis for preferring a certain interpretation is accompanied by specific and applicable standards, and serious reasons for voting on T). 6) If evidence is disputed or highlighted in the round, I do prefer to read it before making my decision, if the tournament allows (I will not read evidence to intervene and conceive of arguments that were not made in round, I WILL read the evidence in order to verify competing claims made in the round).