Austin Morgan Paradigm

Last changed 1/6 8:59P MST

-I'm fine with speed.

-I love K debates, but have no objections to good "traditional" debates.

-I'm always ready, your partner is always ready, and the audience is always ready.

-I default to net benefits/CBA/util absent a framework provided by the debaters.

-I will be familiar with the given topic literature. Moreover, I am highly familiar with K literature (basically every K).

-Don't talk over each other in cross-examination. Share cx time equally.

-I will vote you down if you're overtly discriminatory (ex. racist) in your arguments or your behavior in the round. In these instances, malicious intent is usually required, but not always.

-I'm fine with non-topical affirmatives and non-topical negatives.

-I'm fine with narratives, performances, etc.

-I will vote down arguments that are obviously morally problematic (genocide good, etc.).

-I'm open to arguments critiquing debate itself.

-I have a serious distaste for debaters who embrace this fashionable "bro-ey" style of delivery. This includes gratuitous use of the word "like" and the phrase "probably bad." Another example would be "yeah, so you affirm because of, like, Lacan." I think such behavior is more a sign of one's cultural capital in debate rather than a demonstration of effective argumentation.

-You need to give me the author, date, and related information *before* you read the evidence.

-I do not attach much weight to arguments making empirical claims in the absence of empirical evidence. In particular, I do not buy historical analyses that are not accompanied by evidence. You enter a debate round and then suddenly everyone's an expert--not with me in the back of the room.

-Peer-reviewed literature outweighs evidence from non-peer-reviewed sources absent a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case (for example, arguments like "peer-reviewed articles are inaccessible to smaller debate programs" or "the knowledge production of the academy is ivory tower," etc.).

-I'm fine with cards that are about debate itself, unless they're written by your coach (have to punish bad debate practices).

-If you are incredibly clever in your approach to cross-examination, I'll reward you with high speaker points. My criteria for "clever" is anything that makes it tremendously obvious that your opponent does not know what they're talking about.

-I am entertained by references to Twin Peaks, Woody Allen Movies, "The Big Lebowski," as well as good imitations of Zizek. Such references won't give you any special benefits, but will entertain me.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF OF College Prep BW Dougherty Valley KJ Neg Neg on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 2x Leland LL La Salle CN Neg Neg on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 2x Hawken KS Corona Del Sol FJ Neg Neg on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF 3x Quarry Lane AS Dougherty Valley KB Aff Aff on a 2-1
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF R5 La Salle CN College Prep BW Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF R5 Dougherty Valley BR Fairmont Prep AB Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 VPF R4 Mission San Jose DaKo Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas JK Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 NPF R3 Hamilton GC Juan Diego Catholic GC Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 NPF R2 Hamilton SG Westridge OdMu Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/5/2018 NPF R2 Sky View KD Tucson LS Neg