Morrow,+Cody


 * Cody Morrow 2016-2017 **
 * 12 years judging HS Policy Debate & LD Debate **
 * 8 years judging College Debate **


 * Congratulations on competing at this extremely difficult tournament. Be nice to each other, you are all under pressure and want to win. Rarely if ever does one team in the debate win every argument. Debaters who can recognize what they are behind on and make the necessary comparisons normally win my ballot. Distinctions are essential to most every debate. I prefer to not sort out the debate. Impact comparisons are a really good idea. I will read evidence after the debate if it is extended or otherwise referenced. Please, do not rely on my reading of your evidence to find the distinctions critical to your victory. **


 * There are a few trends I have noticed that stink. ** Not answering cx questions is unacceptable. If you are asked a question you should answer it. Cross-examination should be taken serious. I will pay attention so please don’t waste my time. Next, please do not steal prep time. I understand if you need to get a drink or use the restroom. I do not keep a running clock so don’t take advantage of the instances where the timer is off. The 1NR should not prep during the 2NC road map. When someone says they are ready, other people should stop prepping. If you continue prepping and ask the debater to repeat the order I will most likely decrease your speaker points. I am generally impressed with clarity (if I think you are unclear I will say clearer), I will say clearer if I have trouble understanding you.

.
 * Another issue is one-sentence theory debates **. After these debates my hand hurts and I normally feel like someone felt this was the “easy” way out. I am impressed that so many of you have spent so much time writing blocks to every possible theoretical justification for dispositionality or conditionality (please note the sarcasm). It is impossible for anyone to flow every argument made if you read those frontlines like you read evidence. Another problem with relying almost solely on your pre-written blocks is comparisons are not made. Many times the focus of the other team is on an argument that the frontline doesn’t take into account.. For instance, if someone were negative and ran a conditional plan inclusive counter plan without a solvency advocate. The affirmative could object to the counter plan because of the intersection of those three theory isssues. Rarely will the negative make arguments that assume their counter plan relies three questionable theory issues. Typically the negative reads their general Conditionality good, pic’s good, and reads a front-line contesting the need for a solvency advocate.. It seems to me that the affirmatives argument is that the intersection of those three factors functionally crushes 2ac decision-making and the negatives ability to kick the counter-plan without reason further destabilizes 1AR options. Not only could the aff not predict the counter plan (remember not found in the library no ev) but also the 2ac couldn’t Offense the counter plan. Either the counter plan effectively solves part of the case or it can be jettisoned with no concern for the affirmatives offensive arguments.. Reading your generic frontlines equals an affirmative ballot. If the negative reads the appropriate parts of their frontlines and they makes the necessary comparisons addressing the way those three theoretical positions doesn’t erode Affirmative ground including different examples of how it increases affirmative options or winning that the theory issues don’t produce a moving target anymore than jettisoning a straight turned K or by kicking a DA by simply conceding a simple no Link or no impact argument is essentially the same as kicking the counter-plan b/c the negative still has to answer the theory arguments that are on the counter-plan. If the negative makes these types of specific comparative arguments then they have a good chance of rendering the theory debate moot or the negative could win the theory debate depending on the way the theory arguments unfold in the debate. I would prefer to not judge a ton of theory debates, however if you decide it is necessary I will assess the debate as fairly as possible. I tend to think (I can be persuaded to think the other way) that conditionality is not so fair but that dispositionality is pretty reasonable. Most plan inclusive counter plans are sweet. Topicality as related to the counter-plan is not really a concern of mine. Permutations should almost always be all of the affirmative plan and part or all of the counter plan. Please, resolve the exact wording of the permutation after the 2AC. If the affirmative thinks it might have to go for theory in the 2AR then the 2AC argument needs to be well developed including multiple reasons the negative should lose the debate.
 * Procedural Issues **- I will vote on topicality, however words like jurisdiction, a priori, or it’s a rule of the game mean very little. The negative should demonstrate ways in which the Affirmative is unfair (this can have so many meanings). Comparing your interpretation of the resolution (term) to the Counter-interpretation is still important. I will not vote solely on potential abuse or whichever interpretation is more limiting, however that does not mean you should forgo the portion of the debate, instead the negative needs to demonstrate that the affirmative wasn’t predictable because there isn’t literature to support the Aff’s position… More or less you need to articulate how you couldn’t have been prepared to debate the aff b/c there wasn’t any topic related literature for the negative to find so that is why they couldn’t predict the need to research the case the affirmative chose to read.. I rarely, if ever, vote on cheap shots (gotta define all words in the resolution etc…) primarily because they rarely discuss ground/fairness. Do they discuss anything?

If you are extending a theoretical objection or some type of procedural n in the 2nr/2ar it should almost always be because your strategy became impossible as a of result well developed reasons.Typiclly you should spend most if not all of the final speech on these types of issues. I will listen to plan specification arguments, but that does not mean theoretically I believe the affirmative has to specify, much less have a plan. Once again this discussion should come down to education, ground, and fairness.


 * Arguments of a Critical Tint **- Just because I will vote on Obama or Elections doesn’t mean I won’t listen to your criticism. A couple of things I find myself asking at the end of debates. Does the criticism Impact compete with,, take out, the case advantages, indict the framing of the case, or does the K turn the case. Are there framework arguments that change the way I should evaluate the debate? Affirmatives should probably not waste time on generic wrong forum arguments because I don’t find them very persuasive in my estimation. If you run a criticism please make specific link arguments and don’t rely on jargon to win the debate. I tend to enjoy judging these debates.


 * Counter plans ** - It is probably smart to have decided in advance the disposition of the cp, etc. Solvency distinctions are essential in my assessment. If the negative solves all the case and the affirmative doesn’t have offense on the net benefit it is very easy for me to vote negative.. Likewise, if the negative doesn’t have answers back to a solvency distinction allowing the affirmative to leverage back the case impact versus anything the negative is ahead on then I will verify the size of the solvency deficit double check the case impact evidence then I will evaluate the impact of the case that the negative can’t solve and the impact related to the offense they are ahead on…. In the vast majority of instances if the aff developed impact comparisons based on what the negative counter-plan doesn’t solve makes for an easy decision to vote affirmative .Texts should be written. Permutations should be written or at least agreed on by all parties.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Disadvantages **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> - Depending on the strategy disadvantages are a pretty good idea. Uniqueness is important however it rarely answers internal link answers. Do not think if you control the direction of the uniqueness you always win (but it does help). Don’t forget about the link, impact comparisons, much less the case and please don’t only read evidence. You can take out chunks of positions with well developed arguments. You don’t have to read evidence (although reading ev. is extremely important) to make arguments. The quality of evidence read these days that include specific warranted arguments can decimate the claim only cards. Beware if the you rely on well developed arguments in response to a warrant laden piece of evidence particularly if the author is especially qualified or the evidence is most timely or the evidence contains unanswered warrants then I will air on the side of the evidence.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Case Arguments **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> are a good idea even if the arguments are predominantly defensive the answers still help minimize the magnitude of the case or winning defensive solvency arguments you can tailor those arguments to distance the affirmative from solving chunks of the case which then permits the negative to minimize what pars of the case advantages the Aff. can actually solve for… What happened to good case debates? Normally case turns have to be unique (just a little reminder)..


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Language Arguments **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">like gendered language or violent language or homophobic language are important issues that need to be taken seriously. I will not vote against a team just because they say a word that is potentially offensive, however if a well developed argument is advanced that focuses on educating the participants in the room and the team goes one step further and demonstrates multiple other reasons that implicate the teams ability to solve their case or undermines their framework. To the team who used objectionable language needs to take the language argument seriously including making smart arguments, if you blow off the language objection or you mis-read this portion of my philosophy I will vote against you. I would rather not hear competitors’ character questioned unless the goal is to expose them to alternative ways of thinking..


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">A few last thoughts **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> - If you use an overview to answer multiple arguments in multiple places your overview will most likely contain more than one argument. If so, please reference the argument in the overview you are cross-applying. Clarity is very important. Speed is not a problem, mumbling is…. If I think you are unclear I will announce clearer. Good luck!!!