Morgan,+Ryan

Judging Philosophy


 * Bio:** My name is Ryan Morgan. I debated for Auburn for 3 years in high school and currently debate for Augustana College in Rock Island Illinois.


 * My style:** In high school, I was known as a quasi-shady policy debater. I went for delay CP/politics about 90% of my negative debates in high school debate. I tended to avoid the K and more worried about answering it than I did running it. In college I’ve diversified quite a bit. I’ve gone for the K on both the aff and the neg a vast majority of my rounds this year. So if you’ve heard about me and think I hate the K…think again.

1.Both teams should debate something that at least has to do with the topic. That’s not to say either side cant claim impacts or reasons to vote outside of the plan, I just really would like the general thrust of both teams to have something to do with the topic. 2.The negative should answer the affirmative. In other words, the negative is going to have a hard time convincing me that links of omission or other such non-sense constitute competition. If what the negative is advocating is consistent with the affirmative advocacy, then presumption means an aff ballot.
 * What I like**:I am definitely ok with just about any kind of argument you want to run. There are only two things that I generally believe. Both of these beliefs are changeable with a theory debate obviously, these are just two things I definitely personally believe.

If you are just reading this to see if you want to pref me, I am seriously ok with the wackiest of the whacky. And I definitely agree with a lot of more serious Louisville-type arguments. In fact I am a lot more likely to vote on a serious criticism of the other team’s style of debate than I am to vote on the ice age DA or something whacky like that.

Put an overview in the block on any position that is a little confusing (as in…any kritik and any weird counterplan/disad)
 * My knowledge:** I should be fine on most policy arguments that you run. Be clear when referencing evidence in the 2NR/2AR. As far as the K goes, I am not totally clueless, but its possible that after the 1NC I will have no idea what your arg is. Make sure you take that into consideration and explain your argument in terms anybody can understand.

Stuff I like:
 * Speaker Points:**
 * 1) A real strategy, I try to avoid giving speaks based on the arguments you choose to run. However a case-specific K or a sweet PIC is much safer in front of me than statism.
 * 2) Clarity-I don’t expect to be able to comprehend every word you read. I do expect to be able to hear enough to get the warrants within the evidence as you read it.
 * 3) Comprehensibility: Cut down on the debate jargon if it means you actually say something that I can understand. In other words if you say internal link turn more than 50 times in the 2AR, I probably am missing an actual argument you could be making.
 * 4) Explain 2ac arguments and 1NC case arguments. I will not vote on the 25 case turns you read on the advantage if the 2NR doesn’t give me cites, warrants, and arguments. Similarily if the 2AR cant reference the 2AC/1AR args correctly, I’ll get really annoyed. The reason this makes me upset is that I think it confuses the heck out of the 2AR/2NR and the judge insofar as what arguments you are actually going for. If both teams don’t give me the analysis I need I’ll tend to do one of two things: either I will sit and read //everything// to try to sort it out or I will read nothing and vote for the team that has presumption in that instance. For instance, 20 unexplained solvency turns don’t get much weight in my book and I’ll just vote aff because the neg didn’t really explain a coherent turn to the 1AC argument. But if there is 6 cards on each side of the uniqueness debate on politics that neither team explains I’ll probably wind up trying to look through them all because there is no real presumption way to handle it.

Stuff I don’t like: A. teams that are mean/Arrogant/cocky: unless you cross a certain threshold it wont really hurt you. But I really think subconsciously I draw this line in my head where I say no matter how good you are 29 is about the top if you are kinda mean/rude. B. Very generic strategies that neither team is prepped on. If its politics, spending, and AU counterplan…and the aff doesn’t have any answers, it’s a disaster for your speaks in front of me. C. Muttering/spewing words without making arguments: this always seems to happen in the 2NC when the negative doesn’t know what to say to a 2AC argument. Slow the heck down and answer the argument, don’t just repeat phrases like “no offense” and “but we turn the case” over and over again. D. Boring debates. By this I don’t mean boring issues or something. I just mean, I really am bored by debates I’ve actually seen before.


 * Theory:**
 * Counterplans:** I ran the delay CP in high school, so I’ve been in a lot of CP theory debates. My personal opinion is that PICs are sweet and conditionality is fine. Its not that you cant win these arguments in front of me, but I seriously think you need to justify them. The best advice I can give is if you are going to go for theory in front of me on a CP…go all in on it in the 2AR (or even the 1AR) and don’t give me some wimpy way to throw it out and look at something else.

1.Answer the line by line (IE don’t just read your block against theirs). 2.Impact your voters and be comparative (if you say education outweighs fairness and they concede it that goes a lot farther in front of me than extending another 4 reasons your interp gets better education)
 * General theory stuff: Two things:**

Misc. 1.Random problem I always had in high school: if the 2AC/1AR don’t talk about case advantages, that DOES NOT MEAN THEY JUST GO AWAY! The 2AR in front of me can extend an advantage that has been forgotten until that point. Of course, this is a theory issue, I’m not set on it. But if you know the 2AR is gonna pull this, the 2NR can go ahead and make a theory arg if they want, I might vote on it.

2.There are two kinda random things I do to handle close debates. A.I think there needs to be a substantial risk won of a solvency deficit argument to outweigh even a mitigated disad. This all depends on the round of course, but I think that bad solvency deficit args rarely beat bad disads in front of me. B.the 2AR that rightly says case outweighs usually wins in front of me. In other words, the negative needs to deal with case impacts or they are in serious trouble. There will always be some sort of mitigation on the disad, so if there is a conceded advantage the 2AR should tend to be able to win.

2.Its your round. Have fun with it.