Bloch,+Isaac

"I debated for Berkeley Carroll for four years (2004-2008), the last three of which were on the national circuit. I went to the TOC both as a junior and a senior. I taught at camp the summer after I graduated and have been coaching Berkeley Carroll for the last 4 years.

I'm fine with anything you want to do. I like to think that my paradigm boils down to doing as little intervention as possible. I can flow fast but I was never the best flower in the world, so if you go too far above 300 wpm then I may start missing things. I ran a lot of more "critical" positions when I debated, and will be really happy if you run something interesting and are actually invested in the particular school(s) of thought that you are using. At the same time, don't use critical arguments and dense philosophy to avoid clash.

In terms of theory, for the sake of full disclosure I personally feel that it doesn't make sense and is a fundamentally flawed way to check abuse. But I won't reject anything on face, and don't have anything in particular against RVI's. Probably the most important difference between me and most circuit judges is that I don't have a bias for preferring offense (counter interps), and will give equal weight to defensive arguments put on shells. I like when debaters find ways to challenge the links and warrants in the voter - why I have to vote down abuse (rather then reject the arg) and why theory comes before substance - to name but a few often-blippy parts of shells.

If you want the brief version of my paradigm: what I love about debate is you can do whatever you want (strategically stock, fast, performance/narrative, whatever), so do what you're going to do, and be smart while you're doing it. If you have any questions I'll do my best to clarify them before the round."