Weinhardt,+Ben


 * Judge Philosophy: Ben Weinhardt**
 * __Experience:__**
 * Debated 4 Years in high school for Dowling Catholic in Des Moines Iowa, qualified and attended the TOC, placed top 30 in NFL Nationals 2 years in a row and some other fun stuff.**
 * I currently debate for Gonzaga University as a sophomore and qualified to the NDT my freshman year, etc. I also had the privilege of being an assistant lab leader the past two years at the Gonzaga debate institute with Izak Dunn!**


 * __Me on debate:__**
 * I carry no pre-conceived biases towards arguments (unless blatantly racist or ideologically corrupted to the point that it becomes offensive). I have done every style of debate at some point in my debate career (I was a policy debater frosh-soph in high school, flex in my junior year, high theory critical debate senior year, went to college and qualed to the NDT reading an amalgamation of high theory/postmodern critical arguments and policy arguments. Currently I debate predominantly policy but still understand both critical and policy styles of debate.**
 * __Summary/TLDR:__**
 * Do whatever you are comfortable with in round and I’ll do my best to give a fair decision. I remember getting upset in high school at the arbitrary nature of some judges decision calculus’s; I make it a mission to provide decisions that everyone can understand and agree with. I read and cut a lot of evidence, whatever argument you are reading I have probably gone for at some point in time (exception of pure performance styles of debate absent theoretical substance). I generally default to cost-benefit analysis, the flow, and in round framing arguments. I think evidence is important for arguments unless you persuade me that you (as a high school student) are more qualified than whatever authors the other team is reading (not asking you to do this in round for all analytics, just writing this to demonstrate the importance of evidence). All of these are subject to change by the debaters in round, if you persuade me that cost-benefit analysis, the flow, general logic, etc. are bad I’ll evaluate the debate as such. I generally like arguments that are intelligent, analytical, and demonstrate a well-executed strategy that clashes with the other teams arguments.**


 * __Debating the issues__**
 * Persuasion is generally accomplished through the use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Again, these are subject to change but usually are only changed by operationalizing them to do so. I don’t prefer one over the others.**
 * Also debate is a logical and communicative activity, both of these are inseparable from one another. If your argument is logical but poorly communicated, you can’t expect me to understand 100% of the logical value of the argument; vice versa.**


 * Instead of just inserting arbitrary specifics about each type of argument, I’ll go through and summarize my thoughts on them. Most all judge philosophies do this and it looks like this:**
 * __Disads:__ Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Counterplans__: Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Topicality__: Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Kritiks:__ Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Critical affs:__ Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Policy Affs:__ Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Performance arguments:__ Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __Theory__: Sure, debate them well and you can win.**
 * __What does debating them well mean:__**
 * 1) **1.** **Arguments with claims and warrants**
 * 2) **2.** **Impact the arguments relative to the other team’s arguments and express why yours is more important, turns, or is prior to the other teams.**
 * 3) **3.** **Be persuasive and clear while doing so.**
 * 4) **4.** **Don’t cheap shot, I’ll vote if I could reasonably believe the other team had a fair opportunity to answer it. (IE don’t hide shitty one line ASPEC arguments in T shells and then think you auto win when the aff doesn’t specifically answer them.)**
 * 5) **5.** **Compare and contrast arguments**
 * 6) **6.** **Examples are great ways to contextualize arguments while also providing a foundational warrant for why a certain claim is true.**
 * 7) **7.** **Use logic… please use logic. Smart debaters win more rounds than louder ones, maybe I’m old-school on this point, but still c’mon.**
 * 8) **8.** **Assume that you are the judge and debate according to what you think the __Judge__ would vote for, not your own __ideological biases__. Judge adaption is important, despite the fact that my judging adapts more to the debaters.**


 * And that’s about it**
 * P.S. remember debate is supposed to be fun! Have fun, be nice, don’t demean or hurt other debaters in round. Humor is appreciated if it isn’t at the cost of anyone’s feelings (except maybe me because I think self-deprecation is funny and I have thick skin)**
 * p.p.s. I apologize if there are some slight grammatical errors in this philosophy; it was typed out in a rush.**
 * Other important philosophies that can give you more outlook to my influences when forming my opinions about debate in order of importance: Calum Matheson, Jarrod Atcheson, Bill Smelko, Mark Weinhardt, Brian Mcbride.**
 * Feel free to listen to this song while you read my philosophy, it will relax you. Music feeds the soul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCdGwViVMM**