Morris,+Tyler+(TX)


 * Name: Tyler Morris**
 * High School: Clear Lake (Houston, TX)**
 * College: University of Houston**


 * Background and TL;DR:** I debated LD and PF for 4 years at Clear Lake High School, and am currently in my 3rd year of Policy Debate at UH. I tend to prefer “traditional” debate, but I also consider myself flexible in this regard most of the time. I’m willing to hear you out on any argument, but you’re probably going to be more successful in front of me if you “color inside the lines.”

I am theoretically willing to accept any argument; this philosophy is only to clarify the biases that I come into the round with. I am not as objective as either of us would like to pretend I am, and this should let you know how my biases tend to manifest themselves.
 * General Stuff:**

__Paperless & Prep:__ Prep stops when the flash drive is pulled out, or when the other team receives the e-mail.

__Speaks:__ I generally tend to give pretty high speaks, with an average somewhere in the 28-ish range.

__Speed:__ I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast, or aren’t being clear enough. It will also impact your speaks. You should probably keep it a little on the slow side, though.

__Decorum:__ It's a part of your ethos, and you should do what you feel comfortable doing. Just make sure that if you're deviating from the standard "office dress" or whatever, you're able to pull it off. Don't do something that's not you. Feel free to make jokes or get excited about the round and stuff like that. Debaters with personality are a lot more fun to judge.


 * LD:** A thing that you should keep in mind when I’m judging is that LD was the first event that I competed in. That means that most of my other debate experience has been framed in the context of LD, and as such I’m probably one of the more progressive LD judges. Generally, if you don’t think it’s necessary to have a Value or a Standard, I’m not going to insist that you have one either. You do your thing.

The one thing I do insist on is analytical argumentation. I would much rather have an analytical argument against something without a card than a card without any substantial analytical argument backing it. As for specific stuff:

__Kritiks:__ I’m actually a lot more friendly to Ks in LD than I am plans or CPs – I feel like they fit much more naturally in LD than anywhere else, including CX. As far as the types of Ks you should run in front of me and how you should run them, I’m gonna copy and paste this from my CX paradigm:

"Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan."

__Plans/CPs:__ I naturally default to a truth-testing role, but that’s very much flexible. If you can explain why it’s necessary or preferable to have a plan or a counterplan in the context of the resolution, I’m willing to buy some of what you’re selling.

__Topicality/Theory:__ In LD, I don’t believe Topicality is an //ipso facto// voter in the same way it is in CX. Where possible, I typically reject the argument, not the debater. That being said, it’s not particularly likely that a debater running a plan will lose a Topicality argument and go on to win the round.

One thing I hate more than anything else is when debaters run Theory arguments as a time suck. You’re not just wasting your opponent’s time; you’re wasting mine too. While running a ton of theory arguments won’t cost you the ballot, it will likely hurt your speaks.


 * Policy/CX:** I prefer a “traditional,” plan-centered Aff, and a DA/CP Neg, but I’m not hard-and-fast on that by any means – it’s a preference, not a rule. I’d rather have a fleshed-out debate over something boring than a skeletal debate about something odd, but if you run them, I definitely do like seeing creative arguments – a lot of the stuff that other judges write off as trying to be “sneaky” is the kind of stuff I like seeing in round. Well-developed debates over unusual arguments are a lot of fun. Actually, well-developed debates over any arguments are a lot of fun, but this is particularly true when the arguments get weird.

__Disads:__ Sure, whatever. Politics is fine, so is whatever else.

__CPs:__ I’m okay with a lot of CPs, with the exception being Consult CPs. If you’re going to run an Agent CP, ask about their agent in CX, otherwise I’m likely to buy a perm.

__ Topicality: __ I am absolutely pedantic about T. I love seeing a good T debate and have no qualms about voting for a well-executed Topicality argument, even if – especially if – the definitions that the Neg chose were a little bit out there. I am not a judge that you want to run a blatantly nontopical Aff in front of. That being said, I do tend to give the Aff’s interpretations on T more weight, since T can only win the round for the Neg.

__Framework:__ I don’t like Framework arguments. I default to a policymaking framework and it will be very difficult (though not theoretically impossible) for you to get me to deviate from that. The Aff has to defend the resolution, and if they have a plan text, that’s just a specific means of doing so. I’m going to be skeptical about any arguments that claim to have an out-of-round impact.

__Theory:__ By default, I tend to reject the argument, not the team. It’s very unlikely that this is going to change. I don’t particularly like judging Theory debates.

__Kritiks:__ Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan.

__Performance/Narrative stuff:__ I don’t know how to judge this, so it’s probably not a good idea to read it in front of me. I don't have a lot of experience judging this, so run it at your own risk.


 * PF:** When it comes to PF, I am a stickler for stasis. No plans, no Ks, no spreading, debate jargon is acceptable but I’d prefer if you’d discuss things in layman’s terms. I have strong opinions about this. You should treat me as if I have no prior debate experience, and only an average person’s understanding of the topic area.