Blatt,+Charlie

I debated for Scarsdale High School from 2010 to 2014 primarily on the National Circuit, and I attended the TOC my senior year. The summer of 2014 I worked at NSD. I am currently a student at Dartmouth College, where I occasionally participate in APDA Parliamentary Debate. During the 2014-2015 season, I never squirreled, which I think is a pretty cool fun fact. **Conflicts**: Monticello DA Bergen Academies SK Roslyn AG Park Regional High Schools Scarsdale High School I liked to consider myself as a debater as “national circuit meets northeast.” What this means is that I ran many cases that depended on topical prep and discussion, but I did so with interesting frameworks (most of my senior year I was running Marxism) and strategic spikes. Additionally, I utilized theory all the time as a check on abuse, T as a check on abuse (and to avoid arguments I just didn’t want to deal with), and occasionally I ran theory as either a time suck or a purely strategic tool. **I like substance**. What this should mean for you when doing prefs is that **//I would LOVE to judge you if this description sounds like how you debate.//** However, **I also come from the land of Scarsdale** where tricks, triggers, theory, etc. are commonplace. I fully understand these arguments and am willing to vote on many of them (with some caveats listed below). **Defaults:** Absent a debater making arguments for any particular paradigmatic view they want me to adopt, I will utilize the following. These are all very loose preferences and I can be persuaded easily to disregard any of them in round:
 * Background:**
 * Overview:**
 * Drop the debater on T, drop the argument on theory
 * Truth testing (and to negate means “to deny the truth of”)
 * Fairness comes before education
 * Fairness and education are both voters
 * Competing interps
 * The role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater, defined as the person who either proves the resolution true/false or wins theory.
 * Theory comes before Ks

I am fine with speed, but you must be clear and/or slow down for author names. If you are blazing through an AC with spikes and hidden a prioris, it probably makes the most sense to clearly label or at least transition between these arguments. I will yell clear **twice** **with no penalty**, then I will dramatically lower your speaks. I passionately dislike speed Ks. I will vote on them, but it isn't in your best interest to run them in front of me.
 * Speed:**

I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, and used theory pretty frequently as a debater. Given the choice I would like the round to have some degree of substantive clash (and your speaks will be better if you do this), but it’s your game not mine. I believe that RVIs are compelling if a shell is drop the debater, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also persuaded by offensive counter interps if it is explained to me in round exactly how one functions. I strongly believe that there are diminishing strategic returns after a debater reads two shells, and will start to get annoyed during the third. **All interpretations** need to be read slowly, and need to be written out for me to read. I am really tired of hearing AFC debates every round. They are super boring. I'll vote for it, but I may drop your speaks if the debate comes down to me resolving a messy AFC debate.
 * Theory/T:**

Totally cool if you want to have this kind of debate in front of me. I am not the most well read person ever, but I understand the function and point of most common philosophical arguments in debate. Please slow down if your argument is super dense and/or obscure. Also, I need explicitly explained what sorts of offense link to your standard.
 * Framework/Philosophy**

I may not be the world’s greatest judge for these sorts of debate, but I am fine with evaluating them if need be. I also may not be 100% up on all the jargon related to these, so please make it explicitly clear how your arguments function. **WEIGHING IS NOT OPTIONAL** in utilitarian debates. You must still read a framework if you are LARPing, I will not assume util.
 * LARP/Policy Arguments:**

I am not the judge you want if you are going to read a K in every round, but you're for sure welcome to read them in front of me. I understand them, but no one can keep up with Foucault at 400 words a minute. If you are reading one in front of me you need to slow down dramatically. Also with these sorts of debates, you still need to link to a framework of some sort. If you want an example of a K that I could understand and follow, watch this YouTube video of me debating Ridge JW in octas of Yale 2013: []. **Ks need an alt,** preferably not "reject the aff mindset."
 * Critical Arguments:**

I'm totally fine if you want to read a mostly philosophical critical and/or pre-fiat framework and then add a role of the ballot argument as an additional reason to prefer your framework. I read feminist cases a lot as a debater. **UPDATE** for Nov/Dec 2015: I was very comfortable voting on many of these types of cases at Princeton 2015, and I think that this topic lends itself very well to critical argumentation.
 * Changing the role of the ballot:**

Don’t pref me if your A strat is performance debate or micropol. This is probably the only strategy that I am genuinely biased against. Do not, unless it is actually true (in which case I probably would have ended the round early), call your opponent a racist/sexist/homophobe. They most likely are not and this always made me uncomfortable as a debater. Specifically on Micropol, I think that a 45 minute debate round is the wrong forum for these arguments, and that I should not be forced to drop your opponent when you run these arguments because in reality they probably agree with you. I don’t think that the role of the judge is to be anything other than the arbiter of what specifically goes on inside the debate round, and to say that it is the judge’s role to solve some larger societal problem is not realistic. **To quote the great Ben Ulene, "If you, as the aff 'refuse to affirm' that's fine, but I'll more likely than not refuse to affirm as well."**
 * Micropol/Performance:**


 * Arguments I will not vote on:**
 * Arguments that take fewer than 3 sentences to develop. I feel like past this point an argument probably has a warrant somewhere in there, and with fewer than three sentences there isn’t sufficient argument generation for me to feel comfortable voting off of it.
 * Disclosure theory if the person it is being run on is not running a plan/cp.
 * Flash drive theory.
 * Coin toss theory (apparently this is a thing like please just no).
 * Any arguments that I know to be factually untrue. I do not care if your opponent drops them. As a judge I feel an obligation to promote the spirit of academic integrity and education, and I believe voting for straight up falsehoods is inconsistent with that mindset.
 * Skep comes before theory. Sorry, it just doesn't.

I feel that in 99% of rounds there is a risk of offense, and I would rather figure out some way to evaluate the round substantively rather than looking to presumption. I find it silly to tell me that we don’t really need to have this debate round in the first place because we should just automatically think one side is true. I am happy to listen to presumption arguments read at the top of cases because I understand that debaters need those there as a security net in case that layer of the round becomes active. I will vote on any “trick” as long as it meets my three sentences brightline for arguments because at that point it probably has a warrant. I don’t <3 skep. Don’t run it unless you’re doing it in a cool way or are really funny.
 * Presumption / Tricks / Skep:**

**In round decorum:**
 * I reserve the right to end a round early and drop a debater for being excessively rude, homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. or for doing anything that makes either me or your opponent personally uncomfortable.
 * Don’t run theory (or any not immediately accessible argument for that matter) on a novice/sophomore/local debater who clearly has no idea what they are doing if you are a circuit debater. This is just mean. If you are as good as you think you are, you should be able to beat a novice in an educational way that makes your opponent want to stay in this activity rather than crush their spirit. Obviously I will vote for you on theory won against a novice/sophomore/local debater, but again, I will destroy your speaks.
 * CX is **BINDING**. I will not be persuaded otherwise. If you make an accidental bad concession in CX, sucks to be you! If you lie in CX I will nuke your speaks and also start looking for ways to drop you.
 * Please come in tournament dress. I think it is disrespectful to do otherwise. You are not above everyone else, you do not get to wear jeans and sneakers when everyone else is in dresses and ties.
 * I don’t care if you sit or stand
 * I don’t care if you read off a laptop or paper. However if you are reading off a laptop and your opponent requests to see your case, please either have a paper copy for your opponent, flash your case to your opponent, or let your opponent have your laptop during CX and their prep time.
 * Please don’t act like we’re friends before the round if your opponent doesn’t know me. I don’t want them to be uncomfortable.

Speaks are determined based upon in round strategy and style. I will adjust speaks based upon the quality of the pool. For example, if you’re a pretty good sophomore who looks promising on the national circuit, you might get a 28 from me at Glenbrooks, but a 29 at Princeton. My basic speak scale is as follows: Lower than a 26: you did something offensive (ie were racist, homophobic, sexist or in any other way derogatory, OR you egregiously violated my paradigm). 26: this was an unfortunate round for you. 27: mediocre job. 27.5: average. 28: solid performance. 28.5: you should clear. 29: you were great. >29, I expect you to be in deep outrounds! I will only give a 30 to a debater who makes me want to go tell TAB how I think they should just end the tournament now because it’s so clear that you’re going to win it. Please don't ask me before the round what specifically you can do to get a 30.
 * Speaks:**


 * Feel free to ask any questions before the round! Have fun!**