Van+Schenck,+Charlotte

Last Updated: RKS Camp Tournament,19 July 2016

Hello! My name is Char or Charlotte. Use they/them or he/him pronouns when referring to me. I debated for Princess Anne High School in Virginia Beach, VA from 2011-2015 as a 2N/1A. Nowadays, I go to Wake Forest University in my sophomore year, and I have been in both the 2A/1N and 2N/1A positions. While my high school career was largely uneventful, I debated in the 2016 NDT. My major is technically undeclared, but I plan to double major in history and communications and minor in political science. My debate interests of past and present include queer theory, gender, Marxism, and Heidegger.

Here are a few things I believe about debate:
 * Debate is a game, but it has important ramifications for its participants that can include education, advocacy skills, research skills, etc.
 * "Tech" is important, but endorsing racism, gender/sexual violence, ableism, and other historically-violent structures (this excludes "reverse oppression") with my ballot is unacceptable.
 * Beyond this, the role of the ballot is to be cast for the team who successfully persuades the judge. The role of the judge is to determine who persuaded them.
 * Debaters are best off reading the arguments with which they are the most comfortable, regardless of the leaning of a particular judge.
 * An argument includes a claim, a warrant, and evidence. These components can be presented in many mediums, including affective performances.
 * If one's argument cannot be explained to an audience with little to no experience in the field of literature, then the debater should choose a different argument.
 * "//Clash// of Civilizations" debates, like all debates, should actually have //clash.//
 * Framework makes the game work, but framework isn't and shouldn't be confined to resolutional topicality violations with fairness and decision-making impacts.

A few pet peeves:
 * Referring to me as "judge."
 * Loudly whispering to your partner during a speech.
 * Throwing me weird looks when someone says something with which you disagree.
 * Raising your voice to speak over someone in cross-ex.
 * Arguing over whether or not your argument about a non-traditional aff being untopical is called "framework" or "topicality."
 * These words and phrases: problematic, cold conceded, star this card, the debate space, portable skills (without defining what is included in that category).

And, since I'm really a positive person, a few things that I love to see and hear:
 * Persuasive expression when speaking.
 * Partner synergy.
 * Historical references to back up your evidence.
 * Daring, but rewarding, strategic decisions.
 * Clean organization.
 * References to the following gems of pop culture: Pokemon, Bee Movie, Shrek.

I follow standard speaker point distribution. I'm not sure if I'll ever give a 30, and if you got lower than a 25 then you probably repeatedly said something fucked up.

Feel free to approach me or email me with questions at cvanschenck@gmail.com.