Isidore Newman Middle School Tournament
2022 — New Orleans, US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello! I'm Andrew :)
Isidore Newman '25
I have experience in both LD and Policy.
Please add this to the chain: isidorenewmanab@gmail.com
General
Tech over truth. If an argument is fully explained and not answered, it will be voted on. The key word is argument. Explanation (to some degree) is still necessary if an argument is technically conceded.
I am good for speed, but I will not flow off the doc. You will decide the ballot, but I control your speaks. Clarity is important.
Please be nice people! Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in an L.
Permutation texts and rehighlightings found in the text of the original card can be inserted. Zero risk is possible. I default NEG on presumption.I will not judge kick a negative advocacy unless told to do so in the debate.
Unless instructed by tab to do otherwise, I will verbally disclose a decision with feedback. Post-rounding is good and teaches people to judge more effectively. While you probably should not shout at me, asking questions (sometimes pointier questions) is great!
Collapse to one coherent story. Whatever this may be, it's important to develop arguments and not go for everything, which would make your chances of winning and speaks suffer.
If you are debating someone who does not have technical experience, I am fine with you doing what has to be done to win the debate. That being said, debaters should try to make those debates as educational as possible and speaks will reflect that.
Please email me if you have any extra questions/want further feedback (please make sure another person, like a coach, is on the email for safety reasons).
Planless Affirmatives
I don't have a ton of predispositions. Creative negative strategies are hard, but they are the best.
For framework, I am pretty much squarely in the middle. Affirmatives either need a counterinterpretation or a substantial impact turn. Really good affirmatives have the ability to make a we meet. Fairness can be both an internal link and an impact, depending on how it is articulated. Fairness and clash/education are close to equal.
K
The best version of these debates are those that have developed framework arguments. Evaluating framework is a yes or no question; one side is winning an interpretation, and that is the interpretation that will be used to evaluate the debate. The negative should probably try to exclude all of the affirmative's offense and vis versa. Negatives that win these debates heavily leverage and implicate truthful arguments to beat idealistic technical arguments. Too many people group lots of critical arguments as only an "appeal to truth/ethos," when in reality they are just as technical as anything else.
For links, specificity is best. Rehighlightings of 1AC evidence and quotes from speeches are great. Generic "IR Bad" is probably not going to be sufficient against the best teams.
Counterplans
Competition debates are better than defaulting to 'X Process CP is abusive' and hoping you win. Advantage CPs should probably be in every 1NC against policy AFFs.
For the AFF, permutations require texts (anything beyond do both or do the CP). Limited intrinsic perms are great and probably necessary against many CPs. Solvency deficits need impacts.
Disadvantages
Specific links, turns case arguments, and weighing are essential.
Topicality
I love these debates. I don't have many preferences except judge instruction and substantial weighing. Explain why things matter and write the ballot, and your chances of win will increase significantly.
Caselists (especially with solvency advocates cut) are amazing! Reasonability is not amazing, but is somewhat workable with good explanation.
Theory
I probably lean negative on CP theory and condo, but I will definitely vote affirmative if technically won. For frivolous theory, it would be in your speaks' best interest to not, but I will evaluate it like anything else.
- Isidore Newman School 24 -
If you start an email chain or don't spread clearly, add me at isabelladebate@gmail.com
Round stuff:
Tech >>> Truth (Even if you're probably right, explain please)
comfortable with jargon
I'm good on most arguments as long as they make logical sense: CPs, DAs, clear K's, T-Topicality
Not great for unclear theories, phil, and tricks. If you can explain it to where it makes sense to me and your opponent, go for it.
It's debate so some levels of aggression are understandable, but have fun and be respectful
Speaks:
If you speak clearly, debate well, extend arguments, and respond to your opponents' arguments, I will probably give you good speaks.
If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, or other harmful arguments or remarks, I will probably vote you down and give you 25 speaks (Of course if it's accidental, I'll leave you to the mercy of your opponent).
Add my email if you make an email chain: sylviewilson24@newmanschool.org
Speed is fine, just be clear and send a speech doc if you are planning on spreading.
I don't love Tricks debates, but if you explain it clearly I will vote on pretty much anything.
I enjoy good K, DA, CP, etc. debates as long as I can follow them.
I will vote you down and give you 25 speaks if you make any sort of racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. good arguments.
Tech over truth, and while this may be a given if you want me to evaluate an argument you need to say it explicitly in the round.
Pretty much, just speak clearly and explain your arguments. Other than that, do whatever you want, it's your debate. Confidence and passion are great, just make sure to avoid attacking your opponent personally when it's unwarranted. Overall though, just try to have fun and be respectful to your opponents :)
(I wish this was a given, but unfortunately it isn't, so here we go: I don't care what you wear in round, and honestly I don't really care about formality when speaking either. You should maintain some respect when speaking to me and your opponent, but I won't vote you down for informal language or for joking around in round bc at the end of the day debate should be about having fun and learning skills that aren't always taught otherwise, so as long as your actions don't interfere with that I don't really care what you do)