Tripe,+Halli

Halli Tripe Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, then for four years at Baylor University, and I have been coaching/judging policy debate in college for a few years. I now coach at Winston Churchill HS in San Antonio.

The short version of my judge philosophy: I will vote on pretty much any argument. The only arguments I will absolutely never vote for are things like racism good, sexism good, rape good, etc. Other than that, I am open to anything. So just do your thing, and go with whatever arguments are the most strategic in the round. I am very flow-centric when making my decision after the round. I will likely //not// call for a lot of cards after the round; the impetus is on you to explain the warrants of your evidence. Prep time stops when the jump drive or viewing computer has been handed to the other team. If you are terrible at paperless debate (if you substantially slow down the round and/or are shady about giving your speech doc to the other team), I reserve the right to dock your speaker points.
 * __POLICY/CX DEBATE:__**

The longer version, for further clarification: Speed/Clarity: I am fine with speed, but I do flow on paper, so you need to give me pen time. I won’t call for a bunch of cards at the end of the debate (not because I’m lazy but because I believe debate is an oral activity, not a test of my reading comprehension). I will try my best to flow the warrants of your cards, so it is to your benefit not to blaze through them. Disads: I am fine with these; go for it. CPs: I am fine with these; go for it. You should slow down on the CP text so that I can flow/understand it. Deep down I think some CPs are abusive (i.e. process CPs, consult CPs), but I won’t de facto reject them; I will resolve any theory debates based on the flow. Kritiks: I am fine with these; go for it. You should be aware, however, that I am not necessarily knowledgeable about all variations of postmodern philosophy, and you shouldn’t assume that I automatically know what you’re talking about. I prefer that you slow down a bit more in the 1NC for these (see above), especially on the alternative text. A good neg team will explain exactly how the K links to the aff (don’t just criticize modernity or state action; you need to apply the K to the specific plan/aff/advantages you’re debating). In terms of answering the K, I would really rather the aff go for substantive answers rather than framework, but I understand you gotta do what you gotta do. Topicality: I will vote on T. I generally default to competing interpretations, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Case debates: These are great, and I love to hear a good throw-down on the case. Theory: I will vote on it, but you need to slow down. I want to see clash and line-by-line on theory debates; don’t just read your blocks at each other. Framework: I will vote on it. Just please don’t be whiny about it. Affs without plans/kritikal affs: I will vote for them, and I have no problem with untraditional approaches and/or affs that lack a plan text; this is your debate round, and you can run whatever you want on the aff. But be aware that I will also vote on framework. I will resolve this debate based on whichever team is winning on the flow.


 * __LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:__**

__UPDATE TO LD JUDGING PHILOSOPHY- SEPT. 2014__** The original philosophy below is still true. I will still vote on pretty much any argument. However, I want to be more clear on what I would //prefer// to see in a debate round: 1. I want to see a debate where both sides talk about the topic. You can approach the topic in a variety of ways, but please talk about the topic. 2. Theory in LD is starting to annoy me more and more. I'll vote on it, but you should only read theory in front of me if there is real, demonstrated abuse. 3. Slow down at the beginning of your speech. Seriously. I can't flow your spew of one sentence args that justify your framework if you read them at top speed. 4. If your AC or NC is 90% framework with only one or two arguments about the actual topic, I am not the judge for you. 5. I won't vote on disclosure theory. That's all. Have fun!

I will vote on pretty much any argument. The only arguments I will absolutely never vote for are things like racism good, sexism good, rape good, etc. Other than that, I am open to anything. So just do your thing, and go with whatever arguments are the most strategic in the round. I am very flow-centric when making my decision after the round. I will likely //not// call for a lot of cards after the round; the impetus is on you to explain the warrants of your evidence. Prep time stops when the jump drive or viewing computer has been handed to the other team. If you are terrible at paperless debate (if you substantially slow down the round and/or are shady about giving your speech doc to the other team), I reserve the right to dock your speaker points. My background is mostly in policy debate, so I am generally fine with speed. HOWEVER, I have a really hard time flowing fast LD rounds when debaters speed through a bunch of arguments that aren’t carded (I can only write so fast and I am still developing my shorthand for LD arguments). It is definitely to your benefit to slow down at the beginning of your speech and when reading your definitions, pre-standards, framework, spikes, etc. If I wasn’t able to flow it the first time you read it, I will not vote on it, even if you claim it’s “dropped.” You should also know that because I am sort of new to judging LD, you might need to do a little more explanation on jargon that is specific to LD (for example, “skep,” “necessary but insufficient,” etc.) so that I can fully understand it. I am fine with traditional value/criterion LD cases, or with policy debate-esque arguments.