Skip to main content
University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

UIL Speech Judges

If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at or 512-471-5883.

Jeffery Laramore

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 6

High school attended:
Glen Rose High School

Graduated high school: 2017

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I have 3 years of experience in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, 1 year of Policy/CX Debate experience, 2 years experience in Persuasive Speaking, and 2 years experience in Informative Speech. I attended Tim Cook and Nicole Cornish's Texas Speech and Debate Camp (TSDC) in the summer of 2014, participating in Varsity LD. I advanced to UIL Region in LD, Persuasive Speaking, and Informative Speaking. I qualified for the Northeast Texas Debate Association's (NTDA) State Competition in Policy Debate. I started judging High School debate in September 2017.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 13
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: Generally speaking, I am a Policy Maker. I will vote for the best policy option presented by weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both the affirmative and negative teams. For a policy option to be considered a prima facie case, it must provide for the stock issues of Significance of Harms, Inherency, and Solvency. Tell me the problem with the status quo quantitatively (significance) speaking and its qualitative (harms) severity, why the status quo will not change without your proposed plan, and how your plan specifically addresses and solves the problem. I will vote on disadvantages and counter-plans, but not on kritiks or Topicality arguments. Disadvantage Evaluation: 1) Link 2) Uniqueness 3) Brink 4) Impact Counterplan Evaluation: 1) Specificity: The CP text mustn't be vague. 2) Topicality: CP's do not always have to be topical. 3) Competitiveness: A) Mutual Exclusivity: It must be logically impossible to do both the plan and counterplan. B) Net Benefits: The CP alone must be more beneficial than the plan plus the CP. 4) Permutations by the affirmative must prove that the affirmative plan and the CP are not mutually exclusive.


Rounds judged: 14
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
The framework is the most crucial part of an LD case. The criterion (value-criterion), how one will achieve a stated value, must be in a verb form. This is because a criterion is supposed to be an active mechanism that achieves a stated value. A criterion can be either a concept or a phrase. Think of the framework as the thesis for an essay. [Example: The criterion of "protecting the least advantaged members of society" upholds the value of "justice." Why? Because Rawls defines justice as "fairness," and protecting the least advantaged members of society creates fairness for individuals who would otherwise suffer unjustly without it.] I don't favor a specific number of contentions; however, an affirmative and negative case generally have 3 and 2 contentions, respectively. Think of each contention as a single paragraph. Each paragraph should wholly support the thesis of the essay. Each contention should ultimately support the logic of the framework. A debater passes the litmus test for a prima facie case as long as there is both a clear connection, facilitation, and workable association between the value and criterion; and contentions that are supportive of the framework. I will vote primarily on the debater's ability to support and defend his or her framework against their opponent's attacks. While it is still important that contentions are given adequate time to be defended, I hold much more stock in the framework debate. A debater could win all of his or her contentions, yet still lose the debate if they fail to win the framework debate. Debaters must have workable frameworks. Period.

Contact Information

cell: 254 3961599

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 5 8