Thaler,+Noah

__**Noah Thaler**__ Scarsdale High School '14 Columbia University '18

I debated for Scarsdale for 4 years and qualled my senior year, with 4 career bids. I sporadically judge for Scarsdale.

__**Short:**__ I was a pretty typical Scarsdale debater; I relied heavily on theory, tricks, and some non-util frameworks. I am open to most styles, but will not be good judge for some of them. Debate is a game.

All else equal: Theory > Framework > Tricks > Stock > LARP > Ks > Micropol

__**Long(er):**__


 * Speed:** Really go slowly. I'll say "clear" a couple times, but at that point I've probably already missed stuff. Be reasonable.


 * Theory:** I feel like frivolous theory is often used as a crutch to avoid clash and substantive debate. That’s cool. That being said, you’d better do it well if you want good speaks. Slow down for interps, and please have them written down verbatim somewhere. RVIs are probably true if drop the debater is true. Please slow down on theory dumps (drop the arg, debater, RVIs, etc.)


 * Tricks:** Just warrant why your a priori / whatever comes first really well. Triggers are fine; I triggered presumption or skep in a significant portion of my rounds.


 * Framework:** I'm pretty familiar with most of the commonly-used LD frameworks, but if you're going dense, slow down. Theoretical justification for frameworks come before substantive ones, and usually make the framework debate really easy to evaluate.


 * LARP:** Not in your best interest. I am //really, really bad// at evidence comparison and contention debate and stuff. Don't pref me highly if that's your main strat. Much more open to the non-util LARP.


 * Ks:** Never really got these; if you do run them, be super clear. Ks need an alt that is not simply "reject the aff mindset." Run Ks at your own risk.


 * Micropol / Role of the Ballot:** This is one of the few styles that I feel I have inherent bias against. To me, the role of the ballot is almost certainly limited to the resolution and related theory. If you run these arguments consistently, you should probably strike me or pref me very low.


 * Misc:**
 * I have a relatively high threshold for extensions - it is not sufficient to merely say "Extend contention 1 because it was dropped" or just reference the argument. I'd like to at least hear the tag again
 * I will call evidence if I feel that the confusion is my fault, and not the debater's. If the debater was unclear or super super fast, I won't call evidence, but if I zoned out or made a flowing mistake or something, I will.
 * "If you’re rolling your opponent, please sit down early (you'll see me stop flowing). I won’t penalize you if you don’t, but I’ll reward you if you do." -Ben Ulene