Ben+Berkman

edit
 * || ||~ Details || last edit by [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/user_none_sm.jpg width="16" height="16" caption="guest" link="http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/199.74.76.62"]] [|guest (199.74.76.62)] [|Nov 18, 2010 9:49 am] - [|9 revisions] || [[image:http://www.wikispaces.com/i/w/W_close.gif caption="hide details"]] ||
 * ~ Tags || * none

Save Cancel ||
 * Ben Berkman**
 * Years Out: 2**
 * Assistant Coach, Evanston Township High School**
 * Nova High School, Class of 2008**
 * Northwestern University, Class of 2012**


 * I debated for 4 years at Nova High School in Florida, predominantly in Student Congress with some experience in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Speaking. Since graduating, I have coached at the Florida Forensics Institute and I am now an assistant coach at Evanston Township High School. **


 * GENERAL: You need to give me a way to evaluate the round. Explain to me what layers are most important; tell me why you win. **

SPEED: Look, I have no real moral objection to speed, I just can't really flow it because my background is in Congress. You can go faster than conversational, but you certainly can't spread in front of me. Basically, the faster you go, the worse a judge I will be.

VALUES: If you have a criterion, link back to it. That said, I am open to cases without value structures/policy style arguments. I really just want to hear interesting arguments, regardless of what structure you use.

THEORY: There better be real abuse. If you are running theory as an easy no-risk issue so you don't have to engage with an unpredictable/weird position, then I will not vote off of it. I will never vote off a theory argument that requires anyone to run a plan. I probably WILL be receptive to arguments like "fairness isn't a voter" and I will be even more receptive to things like "textuality comes before fairness." I will vote off of RVIs.

TOPICALITY: I really don't like topicality debates unless your opponent's interp is egregiously off base. You won't win any rounds with me by turning even a semi-reasonable interpretation of the resolution into a topicality debate. I will probably default to reasonability if I'm asked to.

Weigh.