Morrison,+Jacob

Last updated: 11/20/17

Background: I debated for 4 years at Durant High School in Durant, OK in LD (mostly lay, but some circuit) and PF. I currently debate NFA-LD and NPDA parli at Southeastern Oklahoma State University.

Main affiliation: Durant Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)

Email: morrisonjacob38@gmail.com

__**TL;DR: I won't call myself completely tab, or completely anything--much of how I judge is on a case-by-case basis.**__


 * __General & Notes on lay/traditional forms of debate__:** I like hearing good framework debates and like hearing solid impact calculus, that applies for basically all events too I guess. Just explain where you want me to vote so I can evaluate it likewise. I won't do work for you and I won't intervene. Time yourself. Just be responsible with prep. Don't try to scam everybody by assembling/saving the doc after you've stopped prep. And don't clip cards.


 * __Disadvantages:__** I like hearing them. I personally love politics DAs. I'm a bit of a tix debater myself so l try to not be partial but they're personally my favorite. I also enjoy hearing solid link chains with specific evidence. If you don't explain your internal link(s) well don't expect me to buy that extinction outweighs case just based on magnitude.

__**Topicality/Theory:**__ I'll usually only vote on proven abuse and not potential abuse unless there's some highly unusual scenario. I just don't like hearing some generic T substantial or condo bad as a time suck. Only go for T/theory if there is real proven abuse please. Going for them in 2NR maximizes judge discretion and that usually leaves someone in the room very unhappy. I default to competing interps.

__**Kritiks:**__ I'm not a huge K debater but I still enjoy hearing good solid K's with specific links and evidence. I'll still consider them--but things like generic cap and generic security do not excite me. The more specific, the more compelling it is. If your K is literature heavy, please explain the literature well. (Personal favorites: Derrida and Deleuze)

__**Alternative Methods of Debate:**__ Don't even think about performance/K affs. Please. It's a //policy// debate for a reason. I won't drop you automatically for it but it is not what I want to hear. It'll probably just create another crappy theory debate that minimizes topic-specific education. As for satire: time cube, double drop theory, etc, I might think it's funny, but don't expect me to vote for it.

__**Speaking:**__ My usual speaker point range is 27-29. However, I don't really have a bright line or rubric for how I give out speaks and believe speaks usually are on a contextual basis. I'm okay with any speed as long as you're clear. I'm pretty laissez-faire about your volume, speed, etc as long as you communicate effectively. Just please be nice to each other and don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

I'll answer anything not mentioned here in person, over social media, or over email.