Scher,+Dylan

I debated for Berkeley Carroll in Brooklyn, NY from 2007-2011. I was the Top Speaker of the 2011 TOC. Now I go to the University of Chicago and coach Brentwood.

1. I’m willing to vote for an argument as long as there is a logical justification for it in the round. I don’t want to intervene unless one debater is academically dishonest or horribly offensive.

2. Don't leave the decision in my hands: please prioritize layers of the flow and weigh your offense against your opponent's offense. I often sit through rounds where very little weighing is done between arguments. In these situations, I've been forced to rationalize a reason to prefer one argument over another. The debater that does more in terms of prioritizing, developing, and comparing arguments has the better chance to win my ballot. In sum, make my job easy. **This is really important.**

3. I can flow speed, but I expect debaters to be clear. I won’t vote for an argument that is incoherent in the first speech. Slow down for author names and taglines. I will say "clear" but I would much rather not have to. I highly suggest slowing down in rebuttals.

4. I dislike poorly-constructed, purposely confusing cases. If you expect to dazzle me into intellectual oblivion in a situation where it is “sense” competing against the “unknowability of all constructed nonsense” – forget it.

5. I will vote on theory. Well-developed theory rounds can be quite good. Please emphasize the internal link between standards and voters. Theory run for its own sake should not be run (unless you want to lose). I will vote on an RVI, but it would have to be justified (like any other argument).

6. I like debaters who show some personality in round, whether it be a humorous one or a serious one.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round.