Ben Schultz -- Marquette HS

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

Overview: I'm a flow judge who believes that efficacy of anything proposed within the debate round should have to be entirely proven or disproven within the round. The activity is about the clash of words and ideas put forth by the debaters, and the ideas and evidence proposed is less important then the way it is argued. Put another way, I will vote for anything brought up within the round, as long as it is well explained and clearly articulated. This doesn't mean that peppering the flow with meaningless voters and 20 pointing theory and praying that the affirmative drops something will let you easily pick up my ballot, but I do think it is freeing to the debaters in another way, because it means that my personal bias rarely ever enters into the debate round. As for education, its less of a true goal of debate, then a useful side benefit. During the 1986 NBA season, the Boston Celtics rolled through the league en route to an NBA championship. During games where his team was handily ahead, Larry Bird would practice post up moves, or driving using his left hand, or shooting three point shots. The skills that came out of those games were useful in other places, but practicing those skills never came at the expense of trying to win the games themselves.

DA's/CP's/K/T: Spoken about above, however I was less proficient at T as a debater, I find I vote on it often as a judge. K's are rarely run well, so they might make you lose speaker points, but if you believe they can help you win the round, more power to you. I will vote on them.

Theory: Like to vote on it, though I do find the argument "vote down the arg, not the team" persuasive.

Alternative Debate Styles: Stuff like hypo testing and performance are very interesting. DO NOT run this if you don't normally run it to try and pick up my ballot (not sure how worried I should be about this, but there it is), however if you believe you run it well and it is your main strategy, I'd love to hear it.

"Cheating": The only hard and fast rules of debate that I am aware of are time limitations on speechs and prep, and what speech happens when. Everything else is fair game, and I don't adhere to the philosophy that running consult counterplans or sandbagging the 1AR make you less of a debater. As an addendum to the theory note above, I default to a competing interpretations view of theory (much like on topicality), though I can be pursued to change that. Fairness is then not an independent voting issue, but a standard to prove that your interpretation of the rules of debate is the best. In summary, if you are prepared to defend your interpretation of debate, cheat away.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: