Larson,+Benjamin

*UNAFFILIATED*
1991-2005 Douglas HS Minden, NV 1995-2012 League/Tournament Official Northern Nevada Forensics League 2008-2011 Sage Ridge School Reno, NV (Founded Program) 2012 The Davidson Academy of Nevada Reno, NV (Founded Program)
 * Previous Affiliations:**

25+ years of competition and coaching. I’m comfortable with all levels of Policy and Lincoln/Douglas debate, as well as all Individual Events, although I favor Extemporaneous Speaking. (US/FX) I’m generally a traditionalist when it comes to Policy. That means the Aff should have a plan, solvency, et al., and presumption goes neg from the beginning. I don’t want the round to devolve into a Kritik session as a result of that presumption though - don’t abuse presumption. Regarding L/D, I feel that it should remain separate and apart from Policy in every way. That means No Plans, K’s, or other ‘Policy’ arguments if you want me to pick you up. People who win rounds offer a lot of on-case clash by either straight indictment of line-by-line analysis or cross-application of ideas from Case.
 * Debating experience:**

I want to give a flavor of what to expect in general terms - PLEASE ask specific questions prior to the round beginning. I’ll give you as straight-up an answer as possible. Too often students fail to take complete advantage of asking questions of the judge (any judge) and thusly miss out on a potentially enlightening dialogue.
 * Purpose of Paradigm:**


 * Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics:**

This is a huge issue to me, as there are serious knock-on effects to tournament logistics. Want to know why your team is still at the tournament at 1:00 A.M.? Think about how much time you & your partner took to flash documents onto/off of drives during the round - in addition to the allotted prep time - and extrapolate that out for every round being run. These seemingly insignificant minutes quickly add up and are a part of why tournaments run behind. Please know your tech. Please know your files. **FLASH TIME = PREP TIME.**
 * Prep Time:**

Technology, or more specifically the availability of technology to everyone, is a continually growing issue both locally and nationally. While many locales may choose to offer judges the capability to email documents, until the NSDA comes down from The Mountain with a definitive ruling, I have to err on the side of physical availability of evidence. Be ready to produce it upon request. (showing it to me on your screen is fine)
 * Regarding E-mail:**

I’m usually more of a Point Fairy than Point Mizer. Unless you’ve said something offensive to/about your opponent or their heritage it’s not likely you’ll see low points. I have, in the past, given perfect points. I’m sure that I’ll do it again…when it happens is all up to you.
 * POINTS:**


 * Predispositions on the Arguments:**


 * Topicality:** Absolutely critical. It’s a voter, and if you’re indicting it there had better be standards attached as an evaluative mechanism.

This is lazy debate, and represents abuse of presumption by the neg. You have obligations and responsibilities in-round to argue cogent, on-case analysis. To not do so is an offense to the respect of your opponents who took the time to put together what they believe to be a great affirmative. Argue it!
 * Theory:** Counterplans and/or Kritiks: Yeah…theory. I have a problem with teams who want to run 16 minutes of Kierkegaard to indict the Aff.

Again, a critical component to Policy Debate. This is one of the underpinnings of the entire event! AFF has a responsibility similar to the above described NEG - in this case to offer a plan of action which changes the Status Quo. How much, whom for, etc. then become the foundation the rest of the debate gets formed upon.
 * Affirmative Plans:**

This is a hard Circle to Square for me, as I’m weighing competing interests between individual self-expression and adherence to the Traditional. I think that there are ways to “perform” an AFF, although it should still contain the same basic ideas as a case being read - some evidence, citing of that evidence, argumentation, and logic pertinent to the topic.
 * Performance:**

Policy: DA/Case debate, Topicality, Solvency L/D: Evaluative mechanism for weighing Values, Value Criteria, NEG attacking case in the 1NC.
 * What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?**


 * REMEMBER TO ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ROUND!!!**