Ben+Marcal

I debated for Lexington High School from 2001-2005. I was an average debator - moments of brilliance, but mostly moments of mediocrity. However, I probably overachieved based on the effort that I put into debate. Here are some random thoughts about my preferences as a judge:

As a judge, I am simply a person deciding who won or lost a discussion. Lingo and other debate-specific things that don't occur outside of debate always irk me a bit. Try to stay grounded in the real-world.

In my debating days, I found myself hating speed. However, I understand the purpose of spreading, so I'll try my best to not hold it against you. But spreading another team does not mean that you win the round. As such, dropped arguments must have an articulated implication. Contested arguments hold much more weight in the round. I want to see clash.

I will have a really hard time voting on theory because I have a hard time feeling sympathetic when teams have so much time to prepare. However, if a theoretical abuse is well articulated and I can clearly understand the implication in the round then I will vote on it.

I am fine with Kritiks, but I believe that the team running the Kritik needs to completely sell out to it. If you're running a Kritik because you are a team "that loves to run Kritiks", make sure that you do a good job convincing me of the link and the alternative. Any sloppiness in these areas might be damning.

I work in the Finance and Investment industry, so that's what's firing in my mellon on a day to day basis.

I'd be happy to talk about any of this before or after the round.

Thanks! Go. Fight. Win.