Grant Brown (He/Him/His)
 Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21, Teachers College '23, Villanova University '29 (Studying Philosophy)
 Head of Debate at the Brearley School, Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Preparatory
 Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com
 Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory
 Last Updates: 4/11/2023 before TOC
 Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum
 The Short Version
 As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:
 1. What are their qualifications?
 I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley.
 2. What will they listen to?
 Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.
 3. What are they experienced in?
 I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially those based in early modern (Spinoza), German idealist (Kant & Hegel), and continental (Deleuze, Derrida, Heidegger) philosophy.
 4. What do they like?
 I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.
 5. How do they adjudicate debates?
 I evaluate debates systematically. I begin by attempting to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, examples include frameworks or weighing arguments which specify which impacts matter, a theory argument, a kritik, etc. Once I have determined the priority of layers, I proceed to evaluating the different arguments on each layer, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and whatever else is necessary to find an adequate resolution to the debate.
 The Longer Version
 At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.
 For folks doing preferences for the TOC: I am no longer very actively involved in thinking about varsity national circuit debate and its niche strategies. I primarily help students at Lake Highland with frameworks and kritiks and have little depth of understanding of the topic literature. While I find that I am okay with positions with complicated content when well explained, I understand the technical form of arguments less and less. As a final word of warning, I will not be able to keep up with debates which proceed at maximum speed with dense literature and technical movements. Proceed with caution, I am not the flow I once was!
 Kritiks
 I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.
 I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.
 Theory
 I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.
 Policy Arguments
 I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.
 Ethical Frameworks
 I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.
 If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.
 Public Forum
 I usually judge Lincoln Douglas, however I prefer that debaters adapt within the standards of the event at hand. That means I do not necessarily want to see arguments popular in other events - such as theory - in a PF round. However, inevitably many of my opinions above and my background in LD remains part of my perception.
 I do not have an opinion on whether the second rebuttal should just respond to their opponents case or both respond and rebuild their own case. Do whatever suites your strategic and persuasive preferences.
 Debaters ought to cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting; I am extremely skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.
 Speaks and Ethics Violations
 If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.
 30 speaker points demonstrates an exceptional or outstanding performance, passion, and/or argument.