Benischeck,+Jim

I debated for four years at La Salle College High School in PA before graduating in 2010. As a debater i competed on both the national circuit (breaking at tournaments like Harvard, GDS, Wake, etc), and at a more "conservative" level, breaking at both CFLs and NFLs. As a judge i prefer to judge rounds with good arguments that make sense. I can understand a high level of speed, technical lingo, and impact calc, but your 13 independent internal links to extinction spewed out in 2 minutes won't impress me. Actually, i'll probably just laugh at you. Just because i can understand what's going on doesnt mean that I will be inclined to believe it or give it a lot of credibility. This is not to say that i will dismiss your arguments on face, but rather that I will tend to view them with a bit of skepticism, and you may end up fighting an uphill battle against a competent opponent. I also believe that debate is an activity at least partly predicated on persuasion, clarity, and style. It may not cost you the round (and because i said that most of you will ignore it), but it WILL put you in a better position to convince me that your args are correct, and WILL lead to you getting better speaks. Argument quality is also directly linked into your chance of winning and speaks (your reasoning and strategic choice are inherently tied into your overall round performance). As i said above, dumb arguments may be an uphill battle for you. You can read 10 cards saying unemployment is low now, but if the other team gets up and out warrants you (and pretty much just says you're obviously wrong) you may lose this argument. Some may call this judge intervention, but i'm not going to wipe away all of my prior knowledge when i enter the round. If your opponent uses this to their advantage, don't complain about "unfair intervention" but instead make your arguments better, your evidence more recent, and your warrants more detailed. In short, dont be dumb, be persuasive, win.

Some Basic Stuff: -I'd say I default to stock issues/policy making -Try or Die is not very convincing to me -I view debate as an educational activity. That being said, winning is an important part of the activity. Hopefully you can win while learning and debating about important world issues/events -you have to earn high speaks. If you lie, cheat, make strategic mistakes, or are a jerk to the other team, i will lower your speaks -I like good debates. I dont care what you run if it makes sense. Hint- that probably means that its real world, probable, intrinsic to the topic, and well argued -Use CX strategically. Destroy their arguments. This doesnt mean that you should be a jerk, it means that you should be calm, cool, and collected while you tear their arguments to shreds as they watch helplessly -CLASH, PLEASE CLASH

CPs -They need to compete through an actual net benefit. -HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE. I DONT CARE IF AN ORGANIZATION/COUNTRY CAN DO SOME GENERAL THING. I WANT TO KNOW IF THEY CAN DO PLAN -I'm willing to buy most theory if it's well argued. That can vary from condo to topical CPs, Int'l Fiat bad, and states. -If you're on the aff compare the solvency deficit of the CP to the NB. explain why you outweigh.

Ks -I've debated many Ks, but that doesnt mean that i understand the majority of them -I tend to dislike/actually hate most Ks and their authors -Even if i believe what a K author is saying, there's a very high probability that i'll hate the bastardization of it presented in round -Alts should solve. If they dont i'm very willing to buy that the aff is a D/A to the K -You are much more likely to win if you attempt to turn/access their advantages. A good team should be able to make your genocide/other impacts look absurd -specific links are nice. If you dont have one you better explain how your links apply to the aff -I prefer an actual debate on the K to a framework debate. That being said, i am willing to listen to, and may even buy into, a policy framework that somehow excludes the K -If you didnt get it by now, I hate Ks

D/As - Most D/As are built upon strings of improbable chains that would be laughed out of any academic institution in the world. If this is true of your scenario you're probably in trouble -Probability is essential. This means throughout the entire scenario. YOU CAN LOSE YOUR DISAD ON ONE DEFENSIVE TAKEOUT. DONT COMPLAIN IF YOU DO. ITS NOT MY FAULT THAT YOUR DISAD DOESNT LINK. -Specific links and internal links make any scenario better -impacts are not the most important part of the scenario, and actually may be the least important if you're winning any defense on case -politics disads are fraught with problems that becomes apparent to anyone who understands how the political system works. You can try outcarding a team, but it is often more important to just point out the logical flaws in a scenario. I'm willing to consider the theoretical issues with politics. -Case v. D/A calculus is essential throughout the round

T -I dont rly default to reasonability or competing interps. It varies round to round -I THINK THAT K'ing T IS DUMB -I believe that limits are essential -I believe that gut check can actually play into a decision -I'm very willing to pull the trigger on T if its explained well. If they arent topical go for T. It might just be true, not matter how many points they put on it -in case you didnt get it above, I THINK THAT K'ing T IS DUMB

Case: Aff -Have specific evidence - DONT FORGET ABOUT THE CASE. IT IS YOUR FORTRESS. IT IS 8 MINUTES OF THE ROUND. IT IS YOUR KEY TO WINNING. explain it in every speech. apply it to their args. talk about why it's a reasonable approach up against their ridiclous arguments - Explain why the aff is better than the CP. explain why its better than the alt. Explain why your action is more important than the impact to the D/As -Be topical. probably a good idea

Neg -If their case is happening/has happened, run inherency. i have no reason to vote aff for the status quo - attack their advantages. a good mix of offense and defense is good, but defense can be offense. Why do i need you to prove that their aff is bad if you can just prove that it doesnt work? In short, alt causes, no solvency args, impact defense, etc can be the key to you winning your disads. Probability and impact calc dont only apply to negatives's positions -You can actually win on 100% defense if you argue it correctly (presumption, opportunity cost, etc)

In short, I want both teams to make good arguments. You probably wont, and then i'll be angry at your intellectual laziness, but thats ok, I only control who wins the rounds and the speaker points that are awarded. My opinions really dont matter in the grand scheme of things. And it may not seem like it from this, but I really am a nice guy.