Morgan,+Ashley


 * History**: I debated in high school for Lincoln East and Millard South (in NE) and now debate for Baylor.


 * General Comments**: I evaluate the round flow first, cards second. You are not held accountable to answer arguments that are in their evidence but not extended. Comparative impact calculus is a must. Tell me why I should vote for you or you might as well not be speaking. I think that cross examination is underutilized. I'm a big fan of historical references. Many arguments (especially DA scenarios) can be reduced to nothing simply by smart use of cx.


 * Speed**: I'm fine with it. However, if I cannot understand you I obviously cannot flow you so speak clearly.


 * Topicality/Theory**: If it makes sense and you impacted it out well I have no qualms about voting for it.


 * Critiques**: I'm fine with them. I mostly read Fem IR in high school so that is the lit I'm most familiar with. This doesn't mean that I cannot understand other material although I am most familiar with the aforementioned/gender in general, Foucault and some portions of Heidegger. I enjoy these types of arguments even if I'm not as well read as some judges. I expect you to act as if I haven't read the literature to a certain extent. (Not to the extent that I'm a parent or a bus driver pulled in to judge at the last minute but at the same time do not expect me to hack for you because I know what you're talking about)


 * Performance/Project:** I haven't really judged any of these debates yet but I'm not a big fan of them when it is reduced to attempts to make the other team look offensive. Show me what debate looks like in the world of your interpretation as well as advantages to such that change.


 * DA/CP**: They're fine with me. I prefer that you have some argumentative nuances and I tire easily of the stock arguments so if you could make the debate interesting I'd appreciate it. I'm not a person that is unwilling to listen to abusive counterplans. It is, of course, up to the aff to make those arguments.


 * Case Arguments**: I think that these are underutilized in debate.

The tendency of debaters to speed through procedural arguments. Card clipping/attempts to pretend that you read a card you didn't. (Don't expect good speaks from me if you do so) Unnecessary negative demeanor. Have fun and act like you want to be there. I enjoy jovial jokes between teams and when appropriate at the other teams' expense but if undeserved/too harsh/untrue it makes you look stupid. The lack of clarity in exchange for unnecessary speed.
 * A small list of grievances:**