Nicholas Newton-Cheh ParadigmLast changed 3/8 11:39A EDT
Lexington High School '18 UChicago '22
Please include me in an email chain
- Most common args I ran were Affro-pessimism, K affs, policy affs with TJFs, spec, T. Favorite arg was Affropess, but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to vote for it.
- Speed is fine. I'll yell clear but too many times and I'll dock speaks.
- Manage your own prep, compiling speech docs is prep, emailing/flashing isn’t.
- Comfort level: (most comfortable) Kritikal debates (K vs Policy aff, K vs. K aff, K vs. Phil) > LARP and theory/T debates >phil/tricks (least comfortable).
- Debaters who want to read dense phil or nail bomb, spike-laden affs should pref me lower.
- Love good K debates, hate bad ones. I have a high threshold - know your literature, execute effective strategy
- Reasonably familiar with most K's
- K debate should be technical
- The more dense the K lit, the more explanation required
- Prefer specific links over generics
- Clear articulation of the alt is key - Alt's tend to be the weakest part of the K and w/o them most K's are non-unique disads
- Pay more than lip service to framing
- Pls do evidence and impact comparison
- Give me a good overview and collapse effectively - Make it easy for me to evaluate the round
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop the arg, text>spirit, meta-theory>theory, fairness and education are voters.
- Defaults are stupid
- Read that interp nice and slow. Also be extra clear with standards + warrants as I can only flow so fast. The blippier the arg, the clearer and slower it should be read.
-Give good overviews in last speech.
- Do good weighing - same idea as my larp section, make it easy for me to vote eval the round/vote for you.
- I dislike tricks. As a result, I have a low threshold to answering blippy tricks args. You can read tricky args and still engage in a somewhat substantive debate (e.g. I'll vote off a floating PIK) but if your case is 20+ hidden spikes in a 90% analytic phil FW, I'll be annoyed.
-I will vote on tricks but I am less likely to give you a lot of leeway.
- I wasn't really a phil debater in HS - only really read Kant NC's in phil debates.
- Do a good job explaining and ideally don't just read a bunch of preclusion args the I have to wade through.
- Plagiarizing a friend's paradigm, assume that "my understanding [of your FW] will solely depend on your ability to explain it."
- Speaks average a 28 (I'm pretty generous with speaks) - I don't disclose speaks
- Clipping means intentionally or blatantly claiming to have read something you didn't (be it an analytic in a speech doc or the second half of a card that you didn't mark). It doesn't mean stumbling over a few words. The penalty for misrepresenting evidence or clipping is a loss with 0 speaks. If you initiate an evidence ethics challenge and are wrong the penalty shall be applied to you instead.
- Default to ethical confidence (you can argue ethical modesty tho), presume neg, risk of offense, CX is binding. Defaults will be overridden by in round args.
- Low threshold for extensions. A nice overview at the top of a rebuttal is sufficient. But if you expect to win off an impact and don't mention it at all in your speech, it probably won't be evaluated.