Morgenstein+Jared

Hey everyone. Obviously I'm Jared Morgenstein. As a brief intro I competed in Lincoln Douglas for four years at the high school level, attending CFL Nationals three times. I also competed at the Harvard Invitational once and Blue Key Tournament twice. I've just started judging this year so bear with me.

To start out, I am pretty liberal in terms of accepting different takes on a resolution within reason. That being said I do favor a level of tradition to the debate which pays respect to its origins as an alternative to fast paced, policy oriented debating in Policy. So I tend to vote off of the Value Structure more so than a series of cards (I'll get to these later).

So, now the specifics:

-On the Annihilation of Lincoln Douglas by wannabe Policy debaters There are judges who say, "Oh policy arguments are fine and dandy...AT THE SAME TIME". I never understood that since I've watched many a-Policy round and never once did I hear them say the same of "Lincoln Douglas Arguments". I've never heard an Extemp judge say that PF style is fine. Why would they? Those are two completely different fucking events after all. So, thus, I hold the same standard for LD. Simply stated, if you run Ks or skep, spread at me, bombard me with other people's arguments instead of your own (commonly known as cards), or run some sick joke of a case which attempts to confuse your opponent or avoid debating the resolution, or any other Progressive bullshit, I will probably suggest you either find a partner and give Policy a shot or just find another hobby...maybe reading National Geographic or dropping acid is more your thing (no offense to acid).

-On speed in general I can usually understand speed up to a certain point but I prefer clear delivery and concise arguments. If you have to keep time by bobbing your neck, not unlike a chicken, or gasp for breath, you're probably going to fast. You wouldn't want to hurt yourself anyway, so I'm doing you a favor by voting you down. Also, if you're going to use some speed make sure you ask your opponent if they're okay with it, and offer them some as well. Debating is supposed to be educational and competitive and it can't be either of these things if your opponent doesn't understand you.

-On cards A card, by its nature, is the argument of someone else. I want your arguments. Cards are lazy debating. It's okay to be lazy, but you can't always expect to win competitive events while being lazy. I can't tell you how many debates I've judged where I've heard the same case several times. This makes sense since everyone simply googles the resolution and copies and pastes the arguments they find online. It takes a lot more skill to consider the resolution yourself and craft your own unique argument. Try it

-On etiquette Be courteous to your opponent. Don't yell at them, cut them off to repeatedly, or cuss them out. If you want to cuss someone out, do it to me. If your opponent asks to see your case, show it to them, within the bounds of reason.

-On other stuff I don't care if you sit, stand, or levitate, whatever is more comfortable. I don't care if you read off a laptop or paper, whichever is more comfortable.

Conclusion:

Debate fairly, articulate, run a good argument, don't drop, don't abuse, centralize values, convince me.