Gray,+Robin

(Updated 4/6/11) I debated in high school for Fullerton for four years, double 2s my first three years and 1a/2n my last, qualed to the TOC three years, was 8th speaker as a junior and in quarters as a senior. I currently attend UC Berkeley (philosophy major) and coach for St Francis.

I don’t follow a very strict offense/ defense paradigm: I’m down to vote aff on defense against disads – especially disads that suck. In high school and college I went for both critical and policy arguments (towards the end mostly critical) and I don't think I have a particularly strong preference in terms of the debates I watch - you should do whatever you're better at/ whatever you want to. I'd rather see a good policy debate than a bad K debate (also, I'd rather see a good K debate than a bad policy debate). Follow your heart, do what you want to do. Intelligent arguments beat bad evidence.

T debates: be careful, I'd prefer to hear a substantive debate but certainly understand the necessity of going for topicality in some debates or against some affirmatives but if it's "t bases" against an aff that's probably T it's a bit of a stretch assuming the affirmative does what they need to do - if they don't, that's a different story.

Theory: honestly, I’m probably not the judge you want if you’re going for most theoretical arguments; that being said though, I won’t not vote on them, you just need to explain a decent abuse story. I like and went for T, theory (even consult bad sometimes) and framework frequently but I also like and frequently went for consult counterplans, representation kritiks, floating PICs, aff’s with critical advantages that go beyond plan action, etc. Ultimately, just debate well. General defaults: severance/ intrinsic theory = reject the perm, nature of the cp/ k theory = reject the cp, 1nc strat abuse = reject the team Hiding T violations (or just extra/ effects T arguments) in strategic places and hiding theory arguments all over the place is fine with me and I recognize the strategic advantage of doing so. Just make sure they're impacted/ if that's seriously a component of strategy please pay attention to cross applications because I will give decent (but totalizing) leeway there.

I like the intrinsic perm on the politics disad - the affirmative needs a reason it's okay including an interp, a list of ground they still have and an impacted reason why X type of politics disad (i.e. the agenda, I'd assume mainly, I hope) is bad for debate. The negative needs to answer it and prove the perm is bad for debate/ agenda politics good. If the aff wins the perm, they probably win the disad (this doesn't mean I won't vote against this type of perm on theory - again though, my default is that any abuse would be a reason to reject the perm and not the team)

Kritiks: I’m familiar with a lot of the literature but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to explain it. I think well developed link scenarios are really important as well as an impact scenario the alt can solve. As fare as framework, I generally lean towards giving the negative some ground on framework particularly when the affirmative fails to realize //ordering// arguments (i.e. carded "reps 1st" type things) are not a reason to reject the K, that debate should be substantive (i.e. you need a card that says "reps not 1st" you just cry abuse and make it go away - it's the same thing as "terrorism outweighs econ" or something to that degree). You can and should still read some kind of framework argument just be sure to keep the two separate. Also, alt abuse stories (i.e. utopian) should be well developed and I think they're sometimes really useful.

Clash of the civilizations debates are fine but keep it classy and maintain the 'clash' part. Meta-2nrs/ 2ars will make me really sad - __if the line by line dies, so will your speaks__ (this is true of all debates not just clash of the civs)

Paperless teams: you need to save a document that has the cards you marked electronically or I'll strike the card from the round - the other team needs to know which parts of the card you read and forgetting to save the marked document is tantamount to card clipping (I hold teams with paper cards to this same standard - you need to mark the cards accurately during your speech) "I think I read it to this point" doesn't work for me

Random things that matter to me/ may (probably will) change speaker points: **__Enunciating is really important__ to me - I can type over 90 words per minute but if I can't hear you, if you mumble, slur or are just generally not clear, none of it is making it to my flow. I hate when debaters get really over aggressive about timing prep time; i.e. “well actually… you have one second less than that.” __The 2ac should number arguments__. Be sure to __differentiate__ between the end of a card and the next tag - whoever decided never pausing in a speech was okay makes me sad. I hate an excessive number of theory arguments in the 2ac. I hate when I’m not told in the order that there’s going to be an overview. I hate when debaters are shady about disclosing - d__isclosing makes for better debates, so just do it__. I hate when impacts don’t get extended/ debated. I like aggressive cross-exes but not screaming matches and not letting people finish generally makes you look rude. I hate egregious prep thievery. I hate unnamed advantages/ names that change in every speech order, also true for disads and such. __I like short speeches__ and will reward successfully short speeches with speaker points but please dear jesus be right that you're winning. I hate when debaters throw evidence on the floor. I like jokes a lot but only if they're relevant/ not rude. Don't take over your partner's cross-ex, it's generally unnecessary and hurts both partners' ethos.

Things I've needed to add:


 * The 2ar probably doesn't get to extend impacts that weren't in the 1ar or the 2ac, the neg is held to this burden through the block - I think it's only fair; also the neg probably needs to do that analysis.
 * Don't just assert every theory argument was a reason to reject the team in cx/ prep time/ speeches - if you didn't say reject the team and __explain__ why, you're misleading them and I think it's tantamount to cheating.
 * Once the timer starts I will NOT start it over. I can't believe it was necessary to add this but, just letting you know. If you accidentally don't start your timer, if you fumble the first 20 seconds, if you forget to flash cards to your opponent (though that will hurt your speaks) it doesn't matter - have your partner take care of it if you can and keep speaking.
 * "Fiat is illusory" claims - obviously, fiat is not real... I think this argument very rarely gets you places in debate; you'd be better served just explaining why in round discussion is important and less time explaining to me that nothing ever happens in the government.
 * I really don’t like framework debates that argue “no Ks” or something of the rough equivalent.
 * I <3 the consult debate but don’t do it poorly and I still have a decently high threshold for theory.
 * Aspec/ ospec/ t mat quals/ substantial are weak and I hate hearing them in the 1nc.
 * Take the debate seriously. This doesn't mean don't have fun, but if you start functionally forfeiting and make me sit through it, I will be very sad.
 * I won't flow your partner during your speeches - you need to repeat it.
 * __Genocide is not a verb.__
 * Racism doesn’t need a terminal impact.
 * If you can't explain Deleuze and Guattari (or anything you plan on reading for that matter), don't read it.
 * I know I can call for the evidence after the round... Don't spend time telling me I can do that.

Any specifics just ask me robingray13@hotmail.com