Dallastown Wildcat Invitational
2018 — Dallastown, PA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideBenjamin Morbeck
Updated 9-11-2023
I debated 4 years at the University of Rochester (NY) and 2 years at Strath Haven High School (PA).
Add me to the email chain: benmo28@gmail.com
As a debater and a coach, I lived pretty exclusively on the policy side of things. I think my judging history suggests I am an even worse judge for the critique and critical affirmatives than I thought I would be.
I haven't been particularly involved in debate since I graduated; I now work full-time outside of debate (I'm a geologist with the US Geological Survey in California) and that is even more true.
I evaluate the round probabilistically -- comparing the risk that each team accesses their impacts, regardless of whether it is a DA, K or T debate. Good defense is often as important as offense in my decisions, but there is very infrequently "zero risk".
I very rarely dealt with theory and (non-framework) topicality as a debater. I think there are very few situations where negatives would be better served by going for topicality instead of a DA/CP strategy in front of me, and vice versa few situations where you are better off going for theory/condo to answer that nasty counterplan instead of just making solvency deficits or putting offense against the net benefits.
Judge kick makes intuitive sense to me and I'm happy to do it for you, but you need to tell me to do it in the 2NR.
Evidence quality is very important to me. I like to read a lot of evidence as the debate is going on NOT because I like to needlessly intervene but because I think that it makes my decisions more informed. You should use this to your favor by (a) reading good evidence and (b) comparing evidence to impact how I view the evidence that has been read. This also means I am hesitant to vote on, for example, disad stories that are contrived and supported mainly by "spin." If you don't have a single card that describes all of your disad story, I'm probably not interested (though I have a bit of a soft spot for the old school PC-style Agenda DA).
This (hopefully) should only apply to high school debates, but I have a very low tolerance for non-substantive, "trolly" arguments in policy rounds---things like ASPEC, frivolous T arguments, one card or backfile critiques, or even very generic impact turns (e.g. spark). My threshold for affs answering these is incredibly low.
LD specific:
My background is in college and high school policy. I judge LD occasionally but am not familiar with the intricacies of circuit LD. If you read plans/DAs, I'll be a good judge for you. If you are a more traditional/old school LD debater, I'll be able to keep up. Otherwise, you probably don't want me judging your LD round.
I don't think I would ever vote on a theory argument in LD. Generic impact framing arguments (e.g. 'the util debate') don't matter much to me.
I'm not going to look at any analytics you email out. I'll only check the document to look at your evidence. If you are going so fast that I don't hear your analytic arguments with my own ears, then those args aren't going to be on my flow. Sorry. Speed is good, but you need to be comprehensible.
Strath Haven '21, UMich '25 (not debating)
she/her
aboruan[at]gmail.com
I haven't judged or researched on the water topic
*top level stuff*
tech > truth, but my threshold for answering trolly args is low - i won't punish teams for dropping one-liners hidden in a block or blowing off something clearly irrelevant
explanation > evidence, but ev quality matters when it's close
+0.3 speaks boost if you show me you're fully opensource
*policy stuff*
DAs - they're good. politics was ~90% of my high school 2NRs
CPs - also good, condo is probably good, other things aren't a reason to reject the team but can definitely be a reason to reject the arg. ask me to judgekick
Ks - answer case or have links that aren't generic. i usually default to aff teams being able to weigh the plan
K-AFFs/T-USFG - fairness is an impact. heg good/cap k also fine
T - go limits and predictability, reasonability is fine when there's a small difference between interps
*ld stuff*
bad for tricks, phil, and not-legit theory args. i was a policy debater in high school so yes LARPing. i default to util. everything in the policy section applies