Johnson,+Ben

Ben Johnson --Debated for George Walton Academy in high school --Debated for Samford University and later transferred and debated for the University of Georgia --Assistant coach for George Walton Academy I ultimately believe that a judge “philosophy” should not be a predisposition to favor particular arguments or strategies, but instead an analysis of how a judge evaluates argument comparison so that the debater can frame their arguments appropriately. You should rarely to never change your intended strategy on behalf of my philosophy, but instead make sure you compare your arguments in a way that would allow you to win in the context of my philosophy. This is fundamentally how I will calculate all decisions. UQ, Links, internal links, and all that jazz are just a means to minimize the other team’s offense and maximize your own. The value of offense and impact comparison applies to theory as well as substance. I also tend to prescribe to the philosophy that you can only die once. Thus, the argument that “we have 5 huge impact scenarios” in not nearly as persuasive as “here is why this particular scenario is bigger, faster, and more probable”. I also think it is unlikely that you will always win every component of impact calc—while I think it’s okay to make arguments as to why your impact is biggest, fastest, and most probable, I think that focusing on the one that is most true is going to be most beneficial for you case. On a similar note, I think that truth-value to your arguments is helpful, but not critical to my decision. Ultimately, I will do my best to evaluate what is in the debate round and not my predispositions. I think that the main value of truthiness is that your evidence is probably going to be better and more accessible. I think the variable that makes policy debate not only unique, but a more advanced activity than any other intellectual activity, is that there are no rules. I think this makes it the responsibility of the debaters to establish those rules, and thus it is not the responsibility of the debater to adapt to the judge, but the responsibility of the judge to adapt to debater. In other words, in the context of the debate round I evaluate what you tell me to evaluate how you tell me to evaluate it. I am definitely open to voting on any end of the policy/K spectrum. That being said, the arguments I primarily went for over the course of my debate career (and the arguments that I tend to develop for my team) are significantly more policy oriented. This does not mean that I have a tendency to vote policy, but more that super obscure K args or authors may need slightly more explanation. In other words, the argument, “We all know that [insert obscure K author] didn’t have such and such stance on feminist literature in the postmodern era” means basically nothing to me. The name of a philosopher is not an argument. My views on framework are largely based on what you tell me. I do my best to evaluate the round in the way I’m told to evaluate it. I think that the reasons aff or neg should at least get to weigh policy impacts tend to be most persuasive, but I can be persuaded to vote otherwise.
 * __Offense/Defense__**
 * __Policy vs K and Framework__**

I am open to voting any direction on any of these arguments. My fundamental belief here is that there is no such thing as an inherently bad argument, only arguments that are more and less easy to answer. However, arguments that I believe are particularly “easy to answer” include reverse voting issues, ASPEC, and many of the independent voting issues that are invented during the round. I see T as a little more of a “trigger” argument than most other theory arguments. This means that I think neg has to win a minimum threshold of offense in order to justify a vote on T. The violation is not offense—it is a link. Loss of education and ground is not offense—they are internal links. I need terminal impacts for a T vote. The threshold for voting on T is clearly subjective, but so is all impact comparison. I’m not a judge that thinks there has to be actual abuse. T can be used as a strategic argument just like DA’s and turns—I don’t generally believe nuclear war is actually a high risk when I vote down a plan as a result of a DA. My default assumption is that the perm is a test of competition unless told otherwise. I’m big on strategic debating so I’m willing to hear a debate on any CP you want to throw out there—PICs, International Fiat, etc. This doesn’t mean that I am unwilling to vote on theory against the CP, just that I don’t have any huge biases against any particular CP. For what it is worth, I think that presumption goes neg unless neg introduces a CP. Not much to say here—strategy is important. While I think it is possible to win 0 risk of the DA, (or the link, impact, etc.) this probably assumes that neg concedes the defense. If neg says something about it, there will probably at least be a miniscule risk. Having said that, a .0000001 percent risk will probably not be much of an advantage.
 * __Theory and T__**
 * __CPs__**
 * __DAs__**

I was once asked “How can I get a 30 in front of you?” I think this is an excellent way to phrase a question asking for my paradigm. While I don’t recall having ever given a 30, I would imagine a 30 speaker would have a few characteristics: --Highly strategic—debate is subjective, but strategy is our most effective tool for minimizing that subjectivity in front of the judge. While whether or not your politics DA outweighs the heg advantage is a highly subjective decision, whether or not you conceded the straight link turn on the tradeoff disad much less subjective. In the policy debate world, conceding arguments is like accepting the premises of another’s arguments. Basic deductive logic tells us that we can arrive at objective decisions if the premises of our argument are accepted as truth. --Highly familiar with arguments—being able to cite information, authors, and arguments from memory is a huge strategic advantage and is also good for your speaks. --Highly persuasive—while I think eloquence holds almost no value relative to substance, to bump you up to a 30 it helps to make arguments confidently, aggressively, and with even a little humor on occasion.
 * __Getting Speaks__**

--I won’t generally tell you to slow down if you are incomprehensible—I just don’t like doing it—instead I’ll probably just not understand most of what you are saying. It is your responsibility to ensure you are reasonably clear. --I think strong case debates are indicators of advanced debating skills. HOWEVER, keep in mind that the judge tends to be substantially less familiar with your case than yourself. I don’t necessarily understand all the technical intricacies and acronyms associated with your case or case defense. Please explain the technical stuff as if I am in 5th grade before you make arguments with it at 80 mph. This also applies to any other obscure arguments on other flows as well. --You do not have to accept my end-round critique/advise as absolute truth. I think the best way to learn from judges is to listen with a filter. While I think it is important to listen to a judge, I think it is also important to take from the judge the information that is beneficial. If it is not helpful or is counterproductive, you do not have to accept it as unconditionally correct. I do not condone arguing with a judge, but I would encourage you to ask questions.
 * __Some Preferences__**