Grigg,+Neil

My name is Neil Grigg. I graduated in 2010. I was an outrounds participant at Berkeley (x2), Colleyville (x2), Churchill, Memorial, Grapevine, Bronx, and Marks. I was seeded 2nd at TFA state in 2010. I now attend the University of Texas, studying finance, computer science, and the liberal arts. I am about to graduate and will be working at a financial firm in Manhattan. I love debate and believe its one of the most valuable experiences you'll have in high school.

1) I am generally open to all types of arguments and modes of delivery: Kritiks, Theory, Topicality, CPs, etc. There are a few exceptions to this, which I outline in Section II. 2) I am fine with speed and it rarely poses a significant issue. Keep in mind though that I haven't debated myself in half a decade. That said, I will not say "clear" unless you have some kind of health reason for me doing so (e.g. you have a runny nose, lost your voice, have a cold, recently got braces, etc). I will, however, read the original text of voting issues after the round, especially if you ask me to do so. 3) I have an offense / defense view on a lot of issues. 4) I will make decisions based on some kind of evaluative mechanism provided by debaters, either from a criterion or with a role of the ballot argument. If none is provided, then I default to a weighing of impacts via act utilitarianism.
 * Section I. FAQ:**
 * Offense is quite often necessary to win debates.
 * Defense usually does not "kill" an argument. There are only a few defensive arguments that can "take out" a position. Defensive arguments do not by their very nature "take out" a position, even if dropped.
 * Weighing is a critical issue and the best debaters are those that weigh their arguments.

- __Antiquated values debate issues__. - __Arguments that would serve to exclude members of the debate community:__ - __Arguments reflecting a position of complete skepticism about theory debate__. > Please address theory debate with more respectable arguments than this (e.g. "drop the argument not the debater", "reasonability is better than competing interps and there's no abuse here" etc) - __Rude, non-verbal arguments or other demonstrations of poor sportsmanship__. - __Arguments__ __that are obfuscated through dodgy or contradictory arguments made in CX:__ > Neg: "Are there any pre-fiat issues in the AC?" > Aff: "What do you mean by pre-fiat?" > Neg: "Coming before the criterion in weighing" > Aff: "The AC doesn't speak to that issue specifically" > Neg: "So if I win substance that's sufficient?" > Aff: "Well, there's a pre-fiat issue under contention 1..." > //Then later in the debate, aff extends pre-fiat implications to exclude neg offense and says this wins the debate//. - __Presumption as a voting issue__: - __2NR Implication Morphing__: > 1NC: 3 Kritiks are read with no arguments regarding role of the ballot or explicit articulation of implications / case turns of the kritiks or any way for the judge to weigh the alternative against the world of the affirmative. > Aff CX: Neg says kritiks are case turns > 1AR: Acts as though neg did in fact make case turns, even though neg did not actually do this. > 2NR: "Extends" case turns - __New 2NR theory__
 * Section II. Arguments that will in no circumstances persuade me:**
 * Example: "My value is better than my opponents value so I should win"
 * Example: "Genocide is good" or "Racism is good" or "homophobia is good"
 * Example: "debate doesn't have to be fair" or "debate doesn't have to be educational" or "ground is infinite"
 * Example: Making faces at me while your opponent is speaking. I will not tolerate rudeness.
 * Example:
 * I will under no circumstances let you win issues if you purposely obfuscated them in CX. I acknowledge that this is a fine line here, but if I think you cross the line and have become deceptive enough to trick your opponent into not addressing an issue, I will not let you win the issue.
 * In my view, there is never a case where there is "no offense" on either side. If there is a general lack of offense then I will evaluate the least weak remnants of offense available. In my view, defense does not //kill// offense, it just //weakens// offense.
 * Example of morphing:
 * In these circumstances, I will look at the original text of the kritiks to verify that implications were not made. If I judge that they were not articulated in the NC, then I will not allow them to be extended even if the aff acted under the false presumption that these arguments were actually made.
 * Because of the 60-40 neg-aff bias on most topics, I have a very high standard on negatives and completely disallow morphing.
 * I will not vote on theory that is read in the 2NR that is not read in the 1NC. Please use other alternatives, such as reading a counter-interpretation to 1AR theory etcetera.

- __Key Weaknesses:__ - __Key Strengths:__
 * Section III. My weaknesses and strengths as a judge**
 * I find it difficult to fairly judge extremely fast and complex theory and topicality debates. I am OK with this, but attempt this at your own risk. Perhaps try slowing down for these issues.
 * In circumstances where the negative defends multiple worlds and the affirmative perms many of these worlds, I frequently get confused. Perhaps try slowing down when reading the permutations or writing your permutations down on a sheet of paper during your opponent's prep time.
 * I am well-read in analytic and continental philosophy, so I find myself better at judging these issues fairly than most judges.
 * I have a good understanding of the theory of policymaking arguments.

- In perfect debates, my personal judgment is not needed and I can act mechanically to vote on the flow. However, in many cases, certain issues are left unresolved, leaving it to me to resolve these issues. - In cases where debaters do not resolve theory issues, I will default to the following ideas: - I resolve issue-by-issue debate based on arguments made by debaters as to which "layers" come first. In circumstances where debaters don't argue why certain layers come first, I use my default arguments listed above. - I resolve the line-by-line debate to determine who wins an issue: >> Example: Suppose that properly extending the AC requires extending part A, B, and C, but the 1AR and 2AR only extends part A and part B. If the NR doesn't point this out, I will not hold it against the affirmative since I think that some lapses in reasoning are inevitable given the shortness of LD debate rounds. If the NR does point this out, that is a 100% clear reason for me to not allow this argument to win the round. Note that if both debaters do a poor job extending all the key components of their arguments in general, then I relax this requirement.
 * Section IV. Judge judgment**
 * Default: Debaters should be comparing worlds (corollaries: kritiks need alternatives)
 * Default: Negative worlds are not conditional and negative cannot decide in the 2NR to "kick out" of arguments.
 * Default: Permutations need a net benefit and are not purely a test of competition.
 * Default: Theory is an issue of competing interpretations and does not require in-round abuse, only a violation.
 * Default: Theory is a reason to drop the debater, not the argument.
 * Default: Theory is the chief pre-substance issue and comes before micro-political action and other issues.
 * If two arguments clash and compete with one another for winning an issue in the debate, then the debater that does better comparison wins. For me the world "outweigh" and "prefer" are key words in the round. If one debater uses these words and does some comparison and the other does none at all, then debater who does comparison will win the issue since he is adding an extra analytical layer that must be addressed. Similarly, if one debater has a weak one sentence comparison and the other has a lengthy well-developed comparison, then the latter debater wins the issue.
 * Note that comparisons are not important only for impacts. Don't just compare impacts, compare links, criteria, warrants and evidence//.// Also, note that the important of comparison increases as the round progresses and as the importance of the arguments in question increases.
 * In cases where weighing or comparisons are not made or are not appropriate, then I seek to determine which debater best clashed with the //heart// of the other's arguments. If, for example, one debater makes an argument that misunderstands or misconstrues the other's argument, then this will factor into my decisions here. If both debaters do a smart job of properly clashing with the other debater's arguments, then I probably will default to choosing the more articulate and persuasive debater.
 * If two issues are parallel to one another (e.g. both are arguments about decision calculus) and both are dropped and not weighed by either debater, then the person who drops the issue first is the person who loses the issue.
 * If you don't invest time to extend all the components of your argument in the round, I may still vote on it if your opponent has an opportunity to point this out but does not do so.

The average (specifically, the //mode//) debater gets a 28 from me. Getting a 30 means I think you will win the tournament. I do not have objective, well-defined criteria for deciding speaker points. However, I think speaker points are an opportunity to reward students who best embody the virtues of great debating: sportsmanship, articulation, effective use of in-round strategy, and strong analytical reasoning.
 * Section V: Speaker points:**

Ask me genuine questions after the round - I'm happy to answer them. Learning in debate occurs in the pre-round research/thought and post-round reflection. The debate itself is not particularly educational in absence of these other elements. Be sure to take advantage of that.
 * Section VI:** **After the round:**