Alpert,+Isaac

Isaac Alpert Freshman (Northwestern University) - Not Debating The Pembroke Hill School - Debated for 4 years

I am currently a freshman at Northwestern University, but not on the debate team. I debated for four years at The Pembroke Hill School, during which time I received one TOC bid from the KCKCC tournament. Interpret that last sentence any way that you like ;) actually…interpret this whole paradigm as you like and just ask lots of questions before the round. That works nicely most of the time.

In terms of judging, I’ll honestly listen to anything, just make sure you debate what you are best at. I have very few personal biases against any one argument and I’ll evaluate whatever is on my flow.

Here’s how I fall on specific arguments and other tidbits…


 * Speed**: don’t go faster than you can handle. You’ll end up wasting more time by mumbling, gasping, and stumbling, and I won’t get everything on the flow. I also like some personality in your speech, so don’t feel as though you have to be monotone to get through all of your evidence. That doesn’t mean you have to be the sass-master, though. Just some inflection in your tone will suffice.


 * Topicality**: T should be all about what makes debate better by setting fair limits and standards for the topic. With that in mind, I will vote on T if the argument is fairly predictable and the interpretation is well developed. A-SPEC is fine in my book….not so much for O-SPEC, though. But run whatever you like, I’m a nice enough guy to listen and flow it.


 * Counterplans**: I’m fine with conditionality, but that doesn’t mean you should freely run multiple contradictory CP’s…be reasonable. Be creative with your CP’s, but just make sure I get down the whole text so that everyone is on the same page. As for consult counterplans, winning consult theory will always be an uphill battle for the neg in my book, and I question if they’re even competitive…


 * Critiques**: I’m fine with K’s, but just know that I am not an expert in the literature, so some explanation of key concepts would be appreciated during CX. More specifically, for the neg, running a K that turns the case/is a DA to the case will be easier for you to win in front of me. Make sure you show a clear link between the language in the 1AC or its assumptions and your critique. As for the aff, keep any framework organized, and make sure it actually has an impact. Beyond that, go nuts


 * Disadvantages**:….run them I guess.


 * Other notes**: I like nice people, good jokes, and cool outfits. So incorporate all three into your debate. Going line-by-line is neat, too, and I enjoy sign-posting.

Lastly, I expect to see at least two timers per person for each team....and, actually lastly, pref me low...i don't want to make a stupid decision for a good team that would affect your whole tournament. <3