Quam,+Ben


 * I'm Ben Quam. I debated the K in Minnesota. NBD. (Thanks Lav) You're Welcome **


 * Background – Currently a senior at Colorado College, policy debate coach for Kent Denver High School in Denver and Palmer High School in Colorado Springs. I debated four years at St. Paul Central High School in Minnesota with Ilias Karim. Routinely broke at national circuit tournaments such as Blake, Iowa Caucus, Valley, and others. Took 10th at NFL nats and 2nd at the MN state tournament in 2008. Attended multiple debate camps. My partner and I had a reputation for being a K team, but I was also a 2A so I spent a lot of time defending the use of the state, etc. **

** In General - I’d like to think my judging philosophy is pretty straightforward. Run your arguments you want to run and tell me why they win you the round. I will evaluate any argument. I hate it when judges rule out arguments they won't vote on (i.e. "I will never vote on T, most K's, and PIC counterplans). That type of judging detracts from debate as an educational activity and constrains the creativity of debaters. I will listen to all arguments, absent something overtly repugnant, like racism good. I will not vote on racism, sexism good etc. **

** The debate about how I should evaluate the round is as important as the debate about the specific DA/K/CP etc. This means good impact calc on DA’s and good articulation of the link story and the alternative on the K. Run the arguments you can be most effective on and play to your strengths. Line by line organization is important, be sure you are staying orderly on the flow, but at the same time I think a meta-level analysis of what I should prioritize and evaluate first as a judge often wins my ballot. Specifically… **

** Kritiks: I like the K a lot, which is to say I like good K debate a lot. Too often K debate simply becomes tag-line extensions and both teams throwing buzzwords at each other. In high school my partner and I went for the K probably 70% of our negative rounds. And having been a 2A, I have a lot of experience defending against the K. That being said, don’t immediately assume I will be well versed in the particular literature base you’re introducing. Most important is a good articulation of the link and alternative story. **

** Topicality – I like to evaluate topicality in terms of offense/defense without trying to exert my own standards of reasonability into the debate. Explain to me why your interpretation provides for better debate, or better yet show the abuse on the flow. **

** Theory – I vote on theory. I like having an interpretation on theory to evaluate, otherwise I think it often gets too blippy and becomes a wash when it gets answered decently. Slowing down slightly on theory is a good idea in order to convey specific warrants and impacts, especially if you think you’re going to go for it. In general I give the neg a fair amount of leeway on what they can get away with in round, but several conditional advocacies is pushing. **

** Speaking – I can flow everyone so feel free to go as fast as you like. That being said, if you are too unclear I will let you know verbally once, and if it doesn’t get better I’ll stop flowing and it’ll be pretty clear I’ve stopped. I feel like that’s pretty standard procedure. If the flow is all analytics (theory, T, etc) I find it’s best to slow down slightly. A flow getting messed up by both teams is often a whitewash. **

** For further questions please reference Peter Nikolai's 2012 Updates, or go ahead and ask me. **