Koh,+Benjamin

I was the coach at Byram Hills High School in NY from 2013-2016, and since then have done primarily private coaching. I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the [|director for NSD Philadelphia] I graduated from New York University in 2017 and now am a MA candidate in American Studies at the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race at Columbia University, where I am doing my work in the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Valley KK, Newport AL, and Loyola JC.


 * Overview**
 * 1) The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
 * 2) If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you


 * Argumentative Preference**
 * 1) I believe that the judge's role is that ultimately of an educator, and my job is to ensure that the round is a safe, educational forum.
 * 2) I don't believe in a pre/post-fiat distinction. Arguments are positional and claiming that there should be exclusivity between the "debate round" and the "real world" seems nonsensical to me.
 * 3) Framework debates are reductively challenges of assumptions. I evaluate these rounds technically, which means that I evaluate the arguments presented via preclusions + weighing as opposed to truth.


 * Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.**
 * 1) Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
 * 2) Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.


 * Speaking:**
 * 1) I’m very lenient on speaking issues as I have had/ still have my own. If you have a stuttering problem of any sorts, don’t be embarrassed to use any method that may work for you (be it singing, listening to music during speeches, going super slow, whatever you need to do, I’ve had to do stuff like that). If you are struggling with this sort of thing, I’m down to talk about how to try and help solve these issues. This is an [|article] I wrote about my experience with it.


 * Speaks:**
 * 1) I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. __//**When did nice become equated with weakness?**//__ I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
 * 2) What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
 * 3) I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
 * 4) I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
 * 5) I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
 * 6) I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all


 * Post- Round**
 * 1) I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process/
 * 2) If questioning takes too long, I will cut you off and ask that you come up to me and ask questions later. This is especially for flight As so the tournament doesn't get angry at me, which tends to happen a lot.
 * 3) If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

[|Using Ethical Args on Theory Debates] -This is probs kind of old now, but kind of cool that this was written in the fall of 2013 and seeing how debate is now. [|Debate and Speech Impediments] -If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to contact me. I'd love to help out in whatever way I can [|Polyvocalism and Debate with Rebar Niemi] -I really like this; especially the stuff about empathy being the ultimate goal of activities.
 * Stuff I've Written**

My favorite judge in high school was Rebar Niemi. My nephew is Sam Azbel.

Conflicts: Byram Hills (NY), Loyola (CA), Valley KK (IA), Syosset MW (NY), Oakwood AO (CA)

Support [|TDC]!