Gray,+Alan

=Education= > //Concentrations in Constitutional Law & Rights, General Litigation, and Criminal Law & Procedure// > //Concentrations in Law & Society and Spanish// =Debate Background=
 * Juris Doctor, 2014, [|Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law], New York, New York
 * Bachelor of Arts //cum laude//, 2011 [|Florida Atlantic University], [|Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College], Jupiter, Florida
 * High School & International Baccalaureate Diplomas, [|Eastside High School], Gainesville, Florida

Law School

 * Competitions Editor (2013-2014), [|Moot Court Honor Society] (2012-2014), [|Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law]

Moot Court

 * Quarterfinalist and Second Place Brief, [|Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition], [|Brooklyn Law School], Brooklyn, New York, March 2014
 * Second Place, [|Appellate Lawyers Association] [|National Moot Court Competition], Chicago, Illinois, November 2013
 * Second Place and Second Place Oralist, [|Appellate Lawyers Association] [|National Moot Court Competition], Chicago, Illinois, November 2012

College

 * Founder and President (2007-2011), [|Debate Team], [|Florida Atlantic University], [|Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College]

Parliamentary Debate

 * Semifinalist and Runner-Up Speaker, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, February 2011
 * Champion and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, January 2011
 * Champion and 5th Place Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, November 2010
 * Runner-Up Speaker, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, [|Florida Atlantic University], [|Jupiter], February 2010
 * Semifinalist and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, January 2010
 * State Champion and Runner-Up Speaker, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, February 2009
 * Octafinalist and National Champion Speaker, Novice National Championship, University of West Florida, Pensacola, March 2008
 * Runner-Up and Runner-Up Speaker, DSR-TKA National Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, March 2008
 * Runner-Up Speaker,[| Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, Florida State University, Tallahassee, February 2008
 * Runner-Up Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, November 2007

[|NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate] (not the same as high school L-D!)

 * Champion and Champion Speaker, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, February 2011
 * Champion and Champion Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, November 2010
 * Champion, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship], [|Florida Atlantic University], [|Jupiter], February 2010
 * Champion and Champion Speaker, [|Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association] State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, February 2009

High School

 * Captain (2006-2007), Webmaster (2005-2007), PowerPoint Producer (2004-2006), Forensics (Speech & Debate) Team, [|Eastside High School]

Student Congress (selected)
=General Judging Philosophy= =Policy Debate Judging Philosophy= =L-D Judging Philosophy= =PF Judging Philosophy= I was around when Public Forum was first invented, and perhaps it is for that reason that I consider myself an "old school" PF judge. I don't even feel like I should have to spell out a PF judging philosophy.
 * Finalist, [|National Catholic Forensic League] Grand National Championship, Houston, May 2007
 * Fifth Place, [|Florida Forensic League] Varsity State Championship, Niceville High School, Niceville, March 2007
 * Second Place, Crestian Classic, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, January 2007
 * Seventh Place and Best Preliminary Presiding Officer, [|Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament], University of Florida, Gainesville, October 2006
 * Fourth Place, Winter Springs Invitational, Winter Springs, Florida, September 2006
 * Semifinalist, [|Florida Forensic League] Varsity State Championship, Western High School, Davie, March 2006
 * Speed: I'm usually okay with speed, so I'm okay with you spreading, but you need to __articulate__. I will yell, "Clear!" as necessary, but not repeatedly.
 * Flowing: I have no problem with this, but it would be helpful if you emphasized your tag lines so that I can clearly delineate your arguments. Also, I like it if you pause between the end of your card and the beginning of your own analysis so that I know where your source's words end and yours begin.
 * Topicality: I will accept topicality arguments only if there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the 2NR.
 * Kritiks: __**I hate kritiks.**__ Please don't run them.
 * Research Burden: I __**despise**__ the argument that, because it's hard to do research, you shouldn't be expected to be prepared on the AFF case. It's a waste of my time and your opponent's. __**​You will lose if you seriously push this**__ **argument.**​
 * Rebuttals: The 2NR and 2AR need to have clearly delineated voting issues.
 * Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as //prima facie// voters.
 * Jargon: Shouldn't be an issue, but it might behoove you to lay our your argument with as little as possible.
 * Cross-Ex: Please use cross-examination time to set yourself up for arguments in future speeches, and not to make stump speeches of your own. Please also avoid using prep time before cross-examination. I will not penalize you for failing to do these things, but you will make me much happier if you do.
 * Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as //prima facie// voters.
 * Criteria: **__Stock issues.__** The AFF needs to identify: (1) inherency, or, that a problem exists in the //status quo//; (2) significance, or, that the problem inherent in the //status quo// warrants action by the United States federal government; (3) solvency, or, that the proposed plan solves the significantly inherent problem; and, (4) desirability, or, that the proposed plan is the most desirable means of solving the significantly inherent problem. The NEG may attack any and/or all of these, but need only win one in order to win the round.
 * Criteria: **__Framework.__** The AFF needs to define key terms in the resolution and have a clearly established, well-warranted framework, with contentions that advance that framework, in order to win. If the AFF shows that its framework best encapsulates the issues implicated by the resolution - more so than the NEG's counter-value - then the AFF wins the debate.

I frown on the use of a Policy/LD style framework in PF cases. Ultimately, my PF judging philosophy is similar to the question that the NFL proposes that judges use in evaluating PF rounds: "If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?" Historically, I have found that the answer to that question typically rests on one argument that is primarily contested throughout the debate.

Basically, treat the round as PF was intended: communicate your arguments in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or "citizen judge," //i.e.// a member of an American jury. If you think that you could persuade a lay judge with your case, then you'll persuade me.