Rebrovick,+Tripp

Tripp Rebrovick


Tripp Rebrovick Director of Debate, Harvard University. BA, Harvard, 2009. PhD (political theory), Johns Hopkins, 2016.

Some roughly ordered thoughts on how I judge debates:

1. You have to convince me of an argument's merit for it to count; simply asserting something doesn't make it true. Convincing methods of proof include, but are not limited to, warranted evidence, speaking comprehensibly & with conviction, detailed explanation, historical references, and line-by-line rebuttal of your opponents. Unconvincing methods include making numerous unsupported claims, a lack of explicit clash/line-by-line, talking to your computer screen, and ridiculing or belittling your opponents.

2. At the margins, strategy outweighs tech. (N.B. strategy, not truth). This means that no argument is ‘dropped’ if it is answered by an assumption or overarching meta-argument of the other side. It also means that in close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others.

3. At the margins, debating outweighs evidence. This is more of a default than a principle. Evidence matters. A lot. But explanation, analysis, and interpretation of evidence matters too, probably more.

4. You should watch me during a debate. I’m very demonstrative and tend to give both physical and verbal feedback; not quite to the extent that Dallas does, but definitely a little bit.

5. The earlier in the debate that I understand the complexity/totality of your argument, the better off you will be. In other words, if I can't understand your argument the *first* time it is presented, I’m less inclined to fill in the holes for you later on.

5b (old person update #1). I have no interest in looking at the speech doc while you are talking. I want to be on the email chain so that it is easy for me to read evidence while deciding, but I won't be following along in the round.

6. I actively pay attention to the cross-x and will flow something if I think it is important. Please take advantage of this and use your CX time well.

6b (old person update #2). You cannot use prep time to continue the CX, for the same reason you cannot use prep time to continue your speech.

7. I tend to read only what I consider to be the most important pieces of evidence. If I understand the cards during your speech, I will flow the texts of the cards. If I can't understand the cards, I won't be very sympathetic if I do call for them later.

7b (old person update #3). I try very hard while reading evidence only to read what you have highlighted. If what you have highlighted does not form a complete sentence, I'm unlikely to give the card much weight.