Grayson,Chelsea

Hello! I primarily work in graphic design and marketing. This means I do not have an extensive debate history, and am most likely not up to date on topic literature.

Primarily I judge in public forum, but I will occasionally be thrown into LD.

That being said... you can call me a "lay" or "flay" judge. People would say I am a "traditional" judge so spreading in front of me is probably not a good idea, because I will not be able to catch all of your arguments. Additionally, that means I would stay away from heavy debate jargon if possible.

Everything should be clearly warranted and impacted out and linked back to a clear weighing mechanism. (I understand this is how debate functions... but so many debaters fail to do this simple task)

Regardless, I try to be as non biased as I can due to the fact that in debate... both teams are required to affirm and negate.

__Now on specific arguments:__

__Framework:__ It would be preferable to have a clear Value and Value Criterion because it honestly just makes it easier for me to evaluate the round. I am not as familiar with other weighing mechanisms.

Do not at all expect me to have read and/or understood your complex and dense philosophy that you tried to explain to me in 6 minutes.

__Theory:__ I prefer you not run theory at all costs. If there is something in the round that is genuinely abusive, then go for paragraph theory or just tell me convincingly as to why the other team is being abusive and why I should vote off of that abuse.

__Kritiks:__ Again... preferable not to run these because of my little to no experience with them.

__Counterplans and Disads:__ Sure... they are an argument. But again I would suggest presenting them in a "lay" friendly format.

__Speaker Points:__ I will not give below a 26 unless you are explicitly rude, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc.

Overall, If you have a problem with any of the things I said above... then I honestly just dont pref me. I would much rather see a traditional debate.