Morgan,+Tommy

West Des Moines Valley '06 Iowa '10 I don't coach so my school affiliation depends on who I am hired by for any given tournament.
 * Background**

My experience in high school consisted mostly of Extemp, Public Forum, Oratory, and Student Congress. I did one year of LD my senior year and I have been judging it for the last three. I judge speech and PF on occasion, but since graduating I've primarily judged LD.


 * Philosophy**

//General//: Overall I am a pretty easy judge. There aren't many arguments I won't consider, provided they're well warranted, well impacted, and, obviously, well argued. Just don't be offensive (I'm pretty hard to offend so this takes a lot). And be sure to have fun. Too many debaters take this stuff way too seriously (I know I did for the first couple years). Yeah, it's an educational thing and there are pretty shiny things available if you do well, but have fun. It will probably even help you do better.

//Speed//: I'm not a big fan of speed. I can deal with it, but usually if you're going lightning fast you're not clear at all. I'll yell clear once and that's it. If I don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then they become very hard to vote on. I don't like spreads, they're cheap and you aren't really making arguments so much as dropping tags everywhere, but I won't use that dislike as a reason to vote against you. It may affect speaker points, though.

//Standards/Value/Criterion//: I believe that these are very important, especially on the affirmative side. However, if you have a compelling reason for not having them, as long as that reason is clearly articulated then it's fine. But, overall, I prefer to have standards to weigh offense and defense against.

//Critiques//: I have no problem with the K, as long as it is well warranted and very clear. Explain your critique as much as possible. I'm familiar with most of the arguments, but I'm not at all well-read on them. If it's unclear I can't vote on it. Simply extending the tags or just glancing over it in the rebuttals will not convince me of anything.

//Counterplans//: These fun little policy instruments have no place in LD. LD at it's core, even if no standards are used, is a philosophical, contextual debate. I will not vote on a counterplan unless I'm forced to intervene (see below) and that's what comes up. This is not to say that I don't think you should use empirics, but use them in the context of the overall philosophies of the round.

//Topicality and Theory//: I'm not against voting on them, but it is incredibly hard to convince me to so. As far as T goes, the violations better be real, they better be well articulated, and your arguments better make sense. The same applies to theory. To date I have judged exactly one round wherein a substantive and necessary theory debate occurred. It needs to be well warranted and impacted throughout the round, otherwise there's no weight to what you are saying.

//Off-Case and Observations//: I have no problem with either of these, though I find Off-Case to be a little hard to swallow on the Aff.

A priori: Please don't make me vote a priori. If you're running something a priori it better be clear as to why its preclusive. Unlike what a lot of debaters seem to think, simply saying "it precludes" does not mean it does.

//Voting Issues//: Please give me voting issues in the NR and 2AR, and impact them, especially against the framework. This makes my work as a judge much easier, and prevents me from having to be interventionist, which I hate doing. I like crystallization, but you don't have to do it. If you give me voters all throughout your rebuttal just make sure they're clear.

//Speaker Points//: My range is usually 25-27, with 28-30 reserved for truly exceptional debaters, but I'm not afraid to give out those points. However, I'm also not afraid to give far below that should it be necessary. Speaker points depend on the basic things like clarity of the speaker and clearness of the round. If you force me to become interventionist then this will be reflected in your speaker points. Other than that, don't be rude (ie, no referring to your opponent or their arguments as stupid, etc.) and don't be overly aggressive (yelling in cross, etc.) and you should be fine. Also, as a judge, though I love clear voting issues, I don't like being told what to do. I abhor being told to sign my ballot during a speech, and I don't like being yelled at. None of these things will impact my decision in regards to who won the round, but they will impact speaker points in a big way.