Gray,+Tami


 * __Tami__** **__Gray /__** **__Fullerton__** **__Union__** **__High School__** as of 10-9-08

Background : I have never debated. I’ve watched my own kids in literally over 100 rounds a year, every year for 7 years - both have made it to the TOC, so these are national not local tournaments. I have judged rounds for the past 5+ years. I can handle speed and flow fine.

I believe debate should be Plan (course of action) vs. status quo or other alternative. Fiat within the bounds of debate is a good thing (imagine a world where the affirmative plan is enacted & debate whether we //should// do the plan). I realize my ballot doesn’t change the world, but I would like the debate to be about **//should//** the Aff plan exist and how the world would be. Therefore FIAT IS ILLUSORY doesn’t get too far with me. If you want to build a new framework you’ll need to explain & defend it well to win. The farther away you are from center field, the more time and explanation you will need to give to win the argument.

Performance Aff’s – I think when you are Affirmative you have to defend the resolution in some fashion and have some course of action to get there (narratives with an advocacy statement or alternative are fine – poetry and song with no real action, is not). Fair & predictable ground for the Neg outweighs the Aff arbitrarily deciding what they want to talk about. When you are neg & want to do a Kritik – and you can explain how it functions BOTH within & outside the round, I’ll listen.

If it’s not on my flow then I can’t evaluate it. Don’t be too BLIPPY or unclear as to where it should be flowed or how it applies to the point you are trying to make. I will NOT vote on evidence read that it doesn’t seem YOU understand, lots of big words don’t win – you need to break it down and defend it. Be careful with K’s and theory that you can’t understand or defend. I **TRY** to decide the round ONLY on arguments presented.

I don’t go for RVI’s and just saying this is a voting issue doesn’t make it one. Warrants & impacts or real abuse are needed.

I have not had many incidents that I consider TOTALLY unacceptable to debate (unacceptable would include : disrespecting your opponent, inappropriate and vulgar language, sexist - racist - homophobic remarks, interruptions during opposition’s prep or speech time, evidence fabrication or ethics challenges) but I don’t have **__ANY__** tolerance for this. It will threaten speaker points and more. Expect a rant from me at the end if you do engage in such behavior.

Explain your arguments & tell me WHY they are important. I prefer explanation over more heaps of evidence. Brilliant analytics can beat a squirrelly piece of evidence any day. Don’t just put arguments and rebuttals out there – provide resolution to the argument. Connect the arguments, warrants, resolutions and summarize WHY you are winning. PLEASE do impact analysis – magnitude, probability, timeframe. Good debate depends on argument resolution - don’t leave the most important work of CONNECTING THE DOTS to me, the judge. If this is done as an overview – great, but don’t just do an overview to use up time & restate (in the same way) what you said the first time. Debaters that clearly and cleverly resolve arguments usually get my vote & good speaker points, too.

Bottom line, it's your game (within the boundaries). Have fun !!