Hello! I'm Andrew :)

Isidore Newman '25

Last Updated: 2/20/2024

Please add this to the chain: isidorenewmanab@gmail.com

I have debated for Isidore Newman for three years, primarily in LD. For reference, I have been in highly technical debates in late elims of major national tournaments and highly traditional debates at local tournaments, so whatever your argument preference is, I am open to it. As a junior, I have three career bids to the TOC and have qualified once.

Words that are bolded are most important if you want a TL;DR.

Defaults: Util, Comparative Worlds, DtD on T/Theory, C/I>Reasonability, No RVIs, and NEG on presumption. All of these can be changed based upon arguments in the debate.

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. I will say clear three times and if the speech is still not understandable, I will stop flowing.

Please give me any standard to evaluate the round. Whether you call it a value/criterion, ROJ/ROB, standard, etc, please use it to write my ballot. Judge instruction is important and makes debates significantly easier to evaluate (it helps speaks too).

Permutation texts and rehighlightings found in the text of the original card can be inserted. Zero risk is possible. Anything else justifies not voting on an impact turn.

Unless instructed by tab to do otherwise, I will verbally disclose a decision with feedback. I think 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!

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, I think debaters should try to make those debates as inclusive and educational as possible and speaks will reflect that. Like most things, however, this depends on the context. At a local tournament, you should probably not be reading full speed against a novice. In a bid round, you should probably be reading full speed against a novice.

Collapse to one coherent story in the 2NR. Whether this be T, the K, an Advantage CP + DA, or anything else, it's important to develop arguments and not go for everything, which would make your chances of winning and speaks suffer. The same fundamental idea applies to the 2AR. A 2AR that goes for five underdeveloped arguments is much less likely to win than a 2AR that goes for one to two strategic arguments, especially in LD considering the six to three time tradeoff.

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).

- 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)