Morris,+Kyle

I am the Director of Lone Star Forensics. I have been involved in competitive debate since fall 1999.

First, I have a really high standard for clarity when it comes to speaking. Slow down and/or speak up on tag lines and citations b/c I flow them. I'm also listening to your cards so don't mumble/blaze through them to the point where it is incomprehensible. I don't weigh gibberish at the end of rounds. And I don't take responsibility for stuff I miss; that's your fault. Philosophically, I'm probably still opposed to the spread. But, over time I suppose I've become somewhat begrudgingly accepting of it when it is done correctly. That said, I think about 90% of you are terrible at doing it. Don't do it unless you do it well. Chances are you don't though.

Second, I don’t put myself into any boxes or under any label with my judging philosophy because those labels mean so many different things to so many different people. Ultimately, at the end of the round, I am asking myself "Who did the better debating in //this// round?" rather than holding you to some external standard. I judge you relative to your opponents when it comes to the argumentation. But, don't get sloppy just because your opponent chooses to do so. Additionally, your clarity will help my flow and ultimately your efforts to win the round. Generally, teams doing a cleaner job on the flow are going to have a clear advantage in the decision making process.

Third, don’t make any assumptions yourself. I mean this in two primary ways. First, don't assume I know where you are in your speech. Road map and constantly signpost. I really appreciate solid 123/ABC organization. Try to do that when possible. At the very least you should tell me what argument or sub-argument you are responding to so I know where to best assess and compare your comments. Second, I need explanations of all your arguments in detail. This is particularly true of theory arguments where debaters tend to make too many assumptions, in my opinion. You shouldn't expect to blip out a few words and call that an argument. I want your thoughts to be expressed in complete sentences, more or less. You shouldn't assume I know your authors, their primary field of study, their politics, their interpretation of history, their philosophies, and most importantly, what they advocate.

Fourth, I appreciate strategic assertiveness. But don't cross the line by being mean.

Finally, I consider myself a very approachable person. So please ask questions if you have them.

Good luck!!!