Karcher,+Charles

Updated 4/9/2018 Hi! I’m Charles and I debated LD for Sarasota High School. I lone-wolfed the national circuit my senior year, making it to three bid rounds and receiving a bid at Blue Key. I was very much a K debater. I also ran a lot of reps arguments. I also have experience in PF, but my main interest is progressive LD. If you have any questions, feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at ckarcher at ufl.edu. People that influenced my style most/other paradigms I mostly agree with: Jack Ave, Sean Fahey Conflicts: Sarasota HS, Newsome HS


 * __General/TL;DR__**
 * Tell me why and how to vote for you. Make my decision easy by breaking the round down into important issues. Make sure to link offense back to some sort of weighing mechanism or impact filter.
 * I’m fine with all arguments, so long as they aren’t bigoted.
 * I like Kritiks.
 * I’m not the best at judging frivolous theory and spikes. You probably shouldn’t go all in on these arguments in front of me.
 * Be nice.
 * Put me on the email chain. ckarcher at ufl.edu
 * In the words of Sean Fahey, “Please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way if you're really that much of a tryhard, but I will decimate your speaks because you're an asshole. Be considerate and inclusive.”


 * __Speed__**
 * Spreading is fine.
 * I may yell “slow” or “clear” as much as I need, but me having to use these won’t affect your speaks (see speaks section below)
 * Make sure that I’m on the email chain and include all analytics, please.
 * SLOW DOWN on analytical arguments in your later speeches or else I might not be able to keep up!! This is really important!!

These are only defaults if I hear nothing else about these issues!!!!!
 * __Defaults__**
 * RVIs for both sides are cool
 * ROTB/other epistemological claims come before theory
 * Neg gets presumption
 * Comparative worlds
 * Reps come first

This is the type of debate in which I am most comfortable judging, as I ran almost exclusively K positions my senior year. On that note, I really dig Cap, Foucault, Hardt and Negri, ableism, critical IR theory, and gender-related Ks. Further, I am comfortable judging Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, and other high theory. Just explain your arguments well and don’t assume that I know everything that you are talking about. I guess it makes sense to include reps in this section. I read a LOT of reps arguments my senior year, including everything from discourse to spikes bad to perfcons. If these arguments are made, I default to them being the highest layer of the round. I like these arguments. If you can link them back to the safety and inclusiveness of the debate space, that’s even better.
 * __K Debate__**
 * Some specifics:**
 * Overviews are really nice. Explain why you preclude your opponent’s offense and why the K is the highest layer.
 * Know your arguments. Know your authors. I won’t like it if you are reading some K that you found in a backfile and you understand purely through the tags of cards that someone else cut.
 * I feel like people don’t go hard enough on the alt debate. Make your alt really clear. What does it look like? How does it solve?
 * I’m very open to K before theory arguments. Just make them good and win them.
 * I **love** when critical arguments are read as an independent voter/impact turn on theory as a method, even if the argument does not match what the rest of your offense is.
 * K affs: Read what you want. Doesn’t defend the topic? Cool. However, topicality against these affs is probably a true argument, but you’ll probably be able to impact turn it anyway. Explain your aff well and defend it through the entire round.
 * Reps:**

The only FW aff I ever read on the circuit was Foucault. Especially in regards to analytic philosophy, it’s not my strongest area, but I’m fine judging it. Just explain your arguments and go slower on dense stuff.
 * __FW/Phil Debate:__**

LARP is fun. I like DAs and well thought-out plan affs. Tech over truth, unless I’m told to evaluate impacts differently. Tip for 1NCs against phil affs: I love Antonio ’95!
 * __Util/LARP:__**

Fun fact: I have only had two theory/topicality shell read against me during my circuit career. I reserved reading theory to only when I felt like I was at a legitimate disadvantage in the debate space or if a practice was exclusive. **Thus, I am not that well-versed in frivolous theory. However, I heavily vibe with Topicality. I can very much judge standard theory that either a) has a commonly used interp (ASPEC, plans good, etc.) or b) indicts a practice that is legitimately exclusive, unfair, or not educational to the round. In fact, I love theory when it is used in a way that actually seeks fairness and not just as a way to get my ballot.**
 * __Theory:__**
 * Overall, if theory is your A strat, pref me lower. If you use it legitimately, pref me higher.**


 * A note on disclosure theory:** I rarely disclosed on the wiki when I debated and probably violated most disclosure interps. I have my own opinions about disclosure, but these *mostly* won't affect how I view it/if I will vote on it. **However, I won't vote on it if it is run against a debater from a small school/a lone wolf/a traditional debater.**


 * __Spikes:__**
 * I believe that abusive spikes and tricks are very bad norms for debate. Will I vote on them? Sure, but I don’t want to. If you are going to be sketchy, at least be fair and honest in CX.

After getting the 4-2 screw at Harvard two years in a row, I am very lenient with speaker points so long as I think you should do well at the tournament. I’ll average around a 28.8. Unlike judges that reserve 30s for extremely good debaters, I’m not afraid of passing out 30s generously to debaters that impress me—just do what I like to see according to this paradigm. How to get good speaks: Make the round easy for me. Make smart in-round decisions. Run cool arguments. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to me. Also, I’ll probably be shunned for this, but I will give your speaks a boost if you are entered as an independent/lone wolf at the tournament. That’s just how I am. I was never good at spreading. Even after doing speaking drills for weeks on end, I always remained at the same pace and was never super clear. I’m not going to base your speaks off of your speaking speed or clarity.
 * __Speaks:__**


 * __Misc.__**
 * The use of trigger warnings is a good norm
 * If I am judging you at a local and your opponent is someone who clearly does not spread/do circuit debate, do NOT do circuit things against them just because I am the judge. Don’t take advantage of me for an easy win. I won’t like that.
 * If you're running 'Warming not happening/warming good,' you will have to really, really convince me to vote on it. To be frank, I do not want to vote on these arguments.