Morris,+Jeff

I’m the father of Abby Morris (if you have any specific questions I would ask my daughter) and a former high school policy debater. In short, I understand a lot of complex debate arguments but that does not mean I know how every part of everything fits together. I understand things like theory, ks, high theory, etc., but reading them might be inadvisable in some cases. You will have a much better decision if you read CPs, DAs, Plans etc. over complex k’s. I do not know all the buzzwords and debate lingo you use so please be clear!

Spreading and Speaker Points:

I am a former policy debater so I can handle some speed but I am out of practice so I would suggest going around 40% or 50% of your normal speed. I try to be a cool judge and my daughter forces me to inflate speaks, so if you are persuading me and are being funny I will give good speaks. I will not tolerate any mean comments: no screaming, no racist, sexist, homophobic comments, no screaming at your opponent and calling them racist if they haven’t explicitly done something in round that is. Overall, just be nice.

Policy arguments: This is the area I am most comfortable with. Read CPs, DAs, Plans or whatever you want but make sure you clearly explain it.

Framework: I am not very familiar with complicated frameworks or dense arguments, so choose wisely what framework you read. I will try my best to understand it but if you think it is something I won’t understand right off the bat you will need to clearly explain it to me.

K’s: I know about K’s and know the set up of them but I am probably not the best person to judge a K debate since the interactions between the different parts can be hard. I’m not so sure about role of the ballot stuff, but if you read a K and it is easy to understand, AND you explicitly say what this role of the ballot would do for you, go for it. Be cautious!

Theory/T: I know the parts of a shell in an abstract sense but do not know the specific voters or the implications of them. Theory as a layering tool can be pretty hard for me sometimes, so take that as you will. However, I am fine with paragraph theory, i.e, you make an argument about what they did being abusive and say it is a reason to drop them. Large, important shells might present more of a problem. I am also fine with a small amount of paragraph theory in the aff, but you must slow down when you read it, make it explicit, and make it easy to understand. I will not vote off out of round arguments (i.e disclosure or flip before the round).

Tricks: No tricks. I do not like them and do not understand them. A prioris are the only thing you can read in front of me and if you do DON’T try to hide them. If I do not catch them or understand them, I won't vote on them. You need to clearly distinguish them. I fine with paragraph theory like I said earlier but only a small amount that are defensive.

All in all, I just want to have a smart, good debate so do whatever you want but keep in mind my limitations as a judge. Please message my daughter on Facebook before the round if you have any specific questions. Thanks and have fun!