Tripp,+Nicholas

Nicholas Tripp High School: Hightower High School Debate Experience: 4 years, poverty, military, space, transportation College: UH Current Debate Team: GoCoogs (Houston Debate) Rounds judged this year: 20 Years Judging: 2 Current Job: Other info: I really dislike rudeness. If you are rude speaker points will reflect the general discomfort you have produced for your opponents/your partner/ me.

Paradigm - Truth over tech. Tabula Rasa. I am good for analytic arguments. Spec arguments are silly. I err aff with critical / performance affs, neg with policy affs. On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 9 Favorite Debate Argument: Critical Pedagogy Least Favorite Argument: Aspec Won't vote on: I WILL vote for a spec argument if i must, but the aff only has to meet a VERY low threshold for a sufficient answer. Other broad preferences: Please try not to be rude to anyone. Debates can get heated but Ad homs are not a reason to vote for you and will probably result in you getting lower speaks.

Specifics - Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high) Topicality 2 Theory 2 Disads 4 Counterplans 4 Kritiks 5

A good debate about Topicality topical version of the aff (specific) ground loss - why that (particular) ground matters your interp case list their interp case list reason to prefer your def A good debate about Theory: Contextualize the theory argument to this (particular) debate, and why it matters. A good debate about disads: da impact turns the aff time frame/probability A good debate about counterplans: solvency deficits to the aff an answer to the perm

A good debate about Kritiks: (specific) links to the aff/ their performance/ their non performance link turns the aff fiat is fake and you know it discourse matters

Other specific argument prefences: I encourage you to do what you know well/ are confident in your ability to execute. If you understand your policy aff better than you do your critical aff, then read the policy one in front of me.

Other Things: Speed: 3 Their flow: 4 Comments on flowing/speed: Clarity over speed. Spreading is a skill that can be executed problematically. I don't say clear because if you choose to strategically deploy spreading you should also be exposed to the risks of using that strategy. If i cant understand you i will put my pen down.

Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated- 8 Factors for speaker points: I generally give at least a 28.5 to speakers who i believe could break but could use improvement.

uppers links that are contextualized to the aff referencing authors argumentative consistency examples clarity puns

Downers Rudeness

Other: I find it very painful when teams make critical arguments and then perform the link themselves. For example if you talk about ableism and use phrases like "this argument dosen't stand" or if you talk about antiblackness and uncritically deploy problematic racial stereotypes i will be very begrudged to vote for you and will have serious doubts about your pedagogical praxis and thus i will probably have doubts about your alternative.