Will Morgan Paradigm
NHI Topic: "Incredible nervous state, trepidation beyond words: to be this much in love is to be sick (and I love to be sick)."
Emissions Topic: "Already many of the surrounding buildings had disappeared beneath the proliferating vegetation. Huge club mosses and calamites blotted out the white rectangular faces, shading the lizards in their window lairs. Beyond the lagoon, the endless tides of silt had begun to accumulate into enormous glittering banks, here and there overtopping the shoreline like the immense tippings of some distant goldmine. The light drummed against his brain, bathing the submerged levels below his consciousness, carrying him downwards to warm pellucid depths, where the nominal realities of time and space ceased to exist. Guided by his dreams, he was moving back into his emergent past, through a succession of ever stranger landscapes centered on the lagoon, each of which seemed to represent one of his own spinal levels."
I would prefer not to pocketbox (whatever that is). Email is great (email@example.com).
Post-Gonzaga (2016) Update
I think one of the most desireable qualities in a judge is consistency w/r/t the process they use to arrive at a decision. There are a lot of different things people are debating about, and there's no philosophy that's been able to enumerate preference w/r/t all of them, instead I have written here only a couple of things about the content of debates (at the bottom), but many more about the process I use to decide those debates, such that if you have me in the back you will know how I'm going to evaluate things, regardless of what they are. I appreciate the game of debate more than any one argument or type of argument. Do what you're good at, and I will flow and judge your debate with the same amount of attention no matter what its about.
It's worth noting that I work things out in a decision by writing (typing) them down. After the debate ends, I'll start by writing what I immedietly perceive to be the central questions of the debate and who I think is doing a better job framing those questions. Before I ever look at my flows of the 2nr and 2ar, I have written down what each side has told me the most important questions I need to answer are. This is how I decide what to look at first. When I do go back to my flows, how I evaluate arguments is probably with the following rubric 1. How good was it in the 2nr/2ar? 2. How well developed was it in the earlier speeches / cx? 3. How good is the evidence? Evidence is non unimportant to me, but what evidence I read again during the decision (I follow in the docs or w/e) is determined by these first and second points. I'm almost always thinking of things in k and policy debate in terms of comparitive risk terms. For example, how much of the aff/neg's link stuff do they need to win for me to be comfortable voting for them despite some risk of the other team's offense. In critical debates, the more you are winning the history, framing, examples stuff, the more you can control the direction of these evaluations. To translate this into typical debate speak, the more you can make your arguments in localized parts of the debate impactful on the broader decision calculus the more you'll help make my job easy. After I decide what I think are the most important issues, I'll go back to the top and type my decision starting with "I voted aff/neg to ____." I'm always thinking about how each calculation I make while deciding changes that sentence at the top that I'll eventually write, so the more you fill in the blank and compare the version of that sentence that's favorable to you to the other team's version, the better off you'll be in front of me.
It's not that I don't want you to go fast (you should, it's strategic). But consider that what you are getting by going fast in the earlier speeches (cards), is not free of cost (emphasis / persuasion / me understanding the words of your evidence). Teams that go faster earlier, I appreciate it when you take the time to slow down later and really tell me what all that stuff you read means and how and what I should read first and what it does for my deciding.
That's important to me - not just what evidence you want me to read, but when you want me to read it in my decision, and what part of the debate do you think it influences. You don't always have to say "read this first, it's the best card ever" to make this point, rather something like "this card should shape how you understand the entire link debate - it reframes how you think of the link turns" etc.. I suppose I would call this something like evidence evaluations in terms of priority.
Critique debaters, I expect and appreciate a high level of theoretical knolwedge, but you need to impact your theories more. Almost every critique speech I've seen so far this year would be improved by additional framing arguments, especially in the last two speeches.
Against the k: arguments that I found threatening as a 2n going for the k (extinction outweighs, pragmatism, institutions key), I've realized I'm a pretty good judge for. Sometimes policy judges will have in their philosophy that they don't like the k, but the other team so often messes up the "k tricks" that they end up voting on it. This is somewhat similar to what I'm like in a policy debate, but reversed. If the k team mishandles any of the normal "policy tricks," I'm likely to vote against them.
Framework people: I'll vote for you, but not just because the other team took away your da's. I want to hear why you think whatever is making debate less _____ (predictable, fair, etc.) is important, so that there can be a debate about whether or not those benefits outweigh or are outweighed. (I wasn't originally going to write a section for this, but I've had a few of these debates now and too many of them don't clash at the impact level, so I'm just going to be as transparent as possible about the best way to get my ballot--debate the impacts (yours and theirs).
Then: Michigan // Westminster
Now: MBA (GJ & GH) // Cal Berkeley