Morris,+Rae+Lynn

02/17/2013

Bkgrd: I debated LD in high school (admittedly, back in the Stone Age!). I studied Ancient History, International Relations, and Law at The University of Texas at Austin. I have been judging LD for 20+ years.

Basic Philosophy: I am a traditional LD flow judge. Having grown up in a world that did not yet include policy, I appreciate the original intent of LD’s focus being on a debate of VALUES in conflict with a tight topicality throughout. That being said, I have made a concerted effort to understand and have come to appreciate the aspects of policy now being used in LD... but only if run VERY well (clearly stated, on-point, and thoroughly linked). I deeply appreciate quality over quantity.

I require an explicitly stated and clear standard upon which to judge the round. I cannot apply information not given to me. Furthermore, please be vigilant in identifying WHY I should adopt your standard.

Lastly, I am devoted to the statesmanship nature of LD and will look unfavorably upon abusive, bigoted, or arrogant language. Aggressive argumentation is appreciated... I like to see a healthy CLASH.

Speed: I can confidently handle speeds up to 300wpm but be careful over 300... I may not follow you. I do not believe in interrupting with verbal signals, such as “loud” or “clear.” It is one of your responsibilities as an accomplished debater to be able to assess whether or not you are speaking in a manner able to be understood and whether or not your audience is following you.

Speaks: Perfection is rare but when it happens, the entire world is magic and I will award a 30. Otherwise, 25-29 is my usual range. Keep in mind that speaks are inherently subjective and that they are independent of my RFD. After these many years, it doesn’t happen often, so I am always delighted when I hear something new or deliciously clever or amusing.