Adam Grellinger -- Johns Creek

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

I have been judging debates for 7 years, full time for 5 at a rate of about 75-110 rounds per year.

Here's the stuff you're probably looking for

K's -- open to most anything, i have areas of knowledge here and stuff i know nothing about, i sometimes learn new things so putting a list here isn't terrible helpful, you can ask if you'd like, as far as answering k's i am routinely underwhelmed with the responses affirmatives give, but find that when an affirmative properly answers the k it is hard to vote neg. proper answers include a defense of what the aff does/mindset you do, as well as why you talking about the aff in the way you do is a better thing for me to vote for than the k. i also frequently find it easy to vote aff when the alternative is not a counterplan but described in the terms of a counterplan and the affirmative team extends a permutation with some weight. negative, i often think k's make more sense than the alt, i'm just as willing to vote on "the other teams assumptions are racist" as i am "the other teams assumptions are racist so we should rethink something something something"

tech v truth it depends on how techy vs how truthy, i prefer debaters to work this out for me frankly, if the techy team says that i should vote for them to reward their tech and gave an impact to that and won it i would do that, likewise on a team that explains why the claims in a single uniqueness card are better than the claims in the other teams 5 uniqueness cards

neg theory things that are not conditionality are probably not a reason to vote against the team

aff relation to resolution i'm fairly flexible on this frankly, i will vote on framework arguments but i often find them less than persuasive, usually due to a staleness that lies in the debate itself. i am not impressed by cards about things like rules, i would much rather the debaters engage in the debate about why there should and should be certain rules, a neg framework argument structured in such a way is much more likely to be successful in front of me

i prefer to understand you than have you get more ink on the flow, i like to hear the text of cards, that's futile i know, but i thought i'd throw it out there

extra points for using cross ex in a constructive way and not using it to make noise at each other, negative points for general rudeness or for displaying scornful pretense, if you think you're better than the other team do it, don't act it. i do however love a crush, and that is something that will be rewarded

on a 100 points speaker scale i basically give what i would on a decimal 30 point scale without the 2, so if you would have gotten a 28.6 you get an 86, if you got a 29.2 you got a 92, and so on

i'm not very funny, that didn't stop me from trying when i debated, you however should let that stop you.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: