Lunt,+Morgan

This will be my 10th year in the debate community. I competed for 4 years in high school, 2 in middle school, and am currently in my third year of Parliamentary debate at William Jewell College.

When it comes to a preference of arguments I really am open to anything as long as it isn’t extremely morally repugnant: sexist, racist, homophobic arguments. I ran and run pretty much every argument out there. I have a preference to K debate, this does not just mean K's I think that critical impacts on a normal advantage or contention are super strong. I have a high threshold for T. If it has solid links to the topic I'll probably buy that it's topical.

**If you have something insane or out there that you want to run, I am the judge to do it in front of. I run a balance of performance and traditional debate currently.**

Perfectly open to any speed. If you aren’t clear I will yell, “Clear.” Please slow down on the tags and authors.

I evaluate the debate based on what happened on the flow. If you don't signpost properly I can't evaluate how your arguments interact with other arguments on the flow. Same goes for evidence just because you read a piece of evidence doesn't mean there is a warrant in said evidence. I don't think evidence equals truth. A well warranted analytic about why the evidence is false will win me over rather than a group of warrant lacking cards that say a fact is true.

I evaluate the round through framework. Just because you lose this part of the debate does not mean you lose the debate as a whole. Proving you win through your opponents framework is one of the most effective ways to win my ballot.

VOTERS!!! At the end of the round please give me voters. When I sign the ballot I don’t generally write that one person just won everything on the flow. Give me a couple options as to why I should vote for you instead of going over everything. You could lose all but 1 or 2 arguments but as long as you can show me that that argument or arguments outweigh when looking to the framework I will still pick you up. I love impact calc. Please do the work for me; I don’t want to be left at the end of the round trying to decide whether econ collapse outweighs 10,000 people dying. Tell me specifically why your impact outweighs your opponents.

Traditional v. Progressive. I really don’t have a preference as to which form of debate is better. As long as it is organized and well developed I believe anyone can beat anyone regardless of their form of debate.

Speaker points: I rate these based on how well you debate in your particular style and strategic decisions that were made during the round.