Halley,+Cale

=Updated: 10/11/11= = = =Debate History=

2000-2004, four years of LD debate for Santa Fe High School in Edmond, OK. Won numerous tournaments and speaker awards. My team didn't travel nationally much.

2004-2007, three years of Policy debate with the University of Oklahoma. Won numerous tournaments and speaker awards primarily in the JV division. I didn't do too much debate nationally, there were some of the most devoted and talented college policy debaters in the history of the event at OU over those years and rightfully took those spots.

2007- 2009, An assistant debate coach at OU and judging all over the nation but primarily in the southwest region and in the college circuit.

2010 - present, I am now an assistant coach for The University of Miami and Ransom Everglades Upper School.

Judging Philosophy
Policy: If you know anything about the college world of debate you can already tell I come from a Kritical background. That is true but that doesn't tell the whole story. I'm certainly not a hack about it. The best advice I can give you about being Kritical is to be link specific. If you are a Kritical affirmative that means your Aff's narrative should at the very least be topic specific. I'm not sympathetic to very many traditional debate good theory arguments, but I do think you should at least engage the topic area in some way.

As for you traditional debate style kids I'll address a few questions you might have. I like to think I evaluate all styles of arguments evenly, so debate what you want, if you are dedicated enough to travel across the country and get up at 5 in the morning to do this, you should get to debate what you want to debate.

With that being said I find most theory or T arguments tare fighting an uphill battle for me if the negative makes the right arguments. Ultimately I hold theory arguments to a high standard since voting for them usually entails excluding your opponents' interpretation.

If your voter is fairness or competitive equity: We live in an age where all of the world's knowledge is literally at your fingertips, if you can't come up with something to argue about you have bigger things to worry than my ballot.

LD: LD is not policy.

Let me say that one more time so it seeps in

LD is not policy. This means a couple of key things.

1. The Affirmative does not advocate the passing of a plan. this means that FIAT discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Do not misunderstand me though, consequences of a debater's Value, Criterion or weighing standard can and should be discussed. However these arguments are meaningless if not weighed against a competing standard because,

2. The affirmative does not compete against the Status Quo. For example, even if a debater's Value causes a great amount of harms but has one tinny advantage I'll still vote for it if the opponent presents no alternative.

3. The Affirmative is not the USFG this means that ASPEC arguments are a NON STARTER for me. It is not the affirmative's job to outline an agent because LD and its topics are supposed to be debates over universal maxims not policy implementation. ANY disadvantage from ANY agent doing what the affirmative endorses is applicable to the affirmative's argument and therefore your voters for fairness or education are silly.

4. I think both debaters should have a Value and Criterion If you don't you better very clearly explain how what you are endorsing and how it clashes with your opponent.

PF: You have like no time to say anything, so be clear and cover as much as you can but don't sacrifice clarity.

Hopefully my paradigm is clear. If you have a question about it you can find me on twitter @calehalley and i'll answer your question and try to update this page.

Good luck in your tournament. ^_^