Layton,+Austin

My name is Austin Layton, and this judge philosophy was updated for the 2011 TOC. I have judged and coached for Stratford Academy and Johns Creek High School.

I am currently in my second year at the University of Georgia, and I have debated for two years in college and four years in high school. As a debater, I have qualified for the NDT twice, including an first round at-large bid in the most recent year.

I am open to most types of arguments and I tend to separate myself from biases I have going into the round. In terms of judging, I think tech usually outweighs truth, and I am very flow-oriented. If you want to win the debate, making distinctions and framing arguments in the rebuttals will put you in a better position. I will read evidence after the round, but will defer to teams who explain their evidence more. Finally, I have only judged around 20 rounds on this topic with all of them being in the first semester, so I have some knowledge about the topic.

CP and DA debates are great.

T and theory debates are great too, as long as you impact your standards. Explain which is more important: topic education, fairness, neg ground, aff ground, etc. In terms of CP theory, as a 2A, I think the aff arguments are very strong against CPs that compete off normal means. That being said I put the burden on the aff to make those arguments and will easily vote neg on those types of CPs.

K debates – I am fine with, but I will warn debaters to make sure to explain framework, the link, the alt, and the impact. If you want to use the alt or framework to shape the debate, make sure to clearly say that.

Random Notes: -The 1AR needs to answer turns the case arguments and alt solves the case arguments. That being said, the aff should make aff turns the DA arguments and if the negative drops them, I am likely to vote aff. -For better speaker points, be smart, be confident, be funny if you can, and don’t hold back.