Chiles,+Ben

Ben Chiles

So, I'll start off with a little about myself. I have some experience with policy debate; I debated at Wayzata High School for three years before graduating and going to Concordia College and debating for another three years. I was an instructor at the Concordia Debate Institute for three years and I also was a coach for Moorhead High School for two years. I'm currently a PhD student at Northwestern University where I study communication.

My meta-framework for debate is education. I think debate is an activity that in my mind should be about learning, whether it's about issues, about decision-making, critical thinking, philosophy, argumentation, etc. But education is the primary reason we do this.

In terms of arguments, I tend to be fairly open-minded. While I was debating, I ran a variety of arguments-- sometimes I'd run spark or growth bad, other times I'd run discursive criticisms or the infamous Schlag. I had rounds decided by card wars and others decided by coin flips. So I don't have a preference for one style of debate over another. I'm open to whatever you want to run-- as long as you can justify it with good arguments. When it comes time to sign the ballot, I generally follow the "path of least resistance" model. Make it easy for me, make it clear, make it simple, and you'll probably get my vote.