UIL Speech Judges
If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.
Logan Kelley
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 4
Number of tournaments judged: 9
High school attended:
Abernathy High School
Graduated high school: 2015
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I was a two time state finalist in CX state, actively competed in the Texas Forensics Association circuit, and now am a nationally competitive NPDA debate. I've worked with schools from small schools preparing for UIL state to TOC schools who are bid chasing.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 42
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: Before round: I have coached and then judged about every genre of argument at many levels of ability. What you run has little meaning to me, and I care care more about your implementation of the strategy. I will almost always think tech over truth, but that doesn’t mean that I will put up with sexist, racist, xenophobic, or heteronormative comments in round. Personally, tech-over-truth is the best way for me to objectively evaluate a debate round, so if you think otherwise, I would encourage that to be a part of your speech. If you are actually reading my phill: I am a super flow centric judge, because I think it’s the most objective way to judge debates. That being said, if you are not involving me in your email chain please take the either verbal or non-verbal pause between cards. A simple “and” between cards will do wonders for you when I have to make a decision. If you use gendered language, you will lose speaks (Edit your evidence, people!). If you misgender your opponent(s) in round, you will lose speaks. If you impose race or gender onto your opponent(s), you will lose speaks. I will almost always view the round through offense/defense unless I have a framing question telling me otherwise. Aff’s – I almost always will default to the fact that I think the aff should be in the direction of the resolution at a minimal, because I don’t think that reading back files from years ago on a policy aff is educational for anyone. That being said, past that I have no preference one way or the other. I stand strong on the idea that if debate was never a space and has never defended you, you should not have to defend anything that you don’t want too. I really enjoy performance aff’s and almost exclusively ran them when I was in HS, but that does not mean that hyper-specific policy aff’s (which I almost exclusively read in college) will not win my ballet, so take from that what you may. One other things to note about the aff’s as I have judged more debates – I think that critical affirmative teams get away with a lot more ground then they usually should in the context of permutations. This does not mean that I won’t vote for a perm or even that I don’t love a good perm debate, but I will likely ask to see your permutation evidence at the end of the round. T/FW – I will default to competing interoperations, because I think it will result in the least amount of intervention. However, if I am given arguments that indicate otherwise or even that I shouldn’t evaluate T, that is a debate to be had on the flow. I have voted for and against framework debates about the same amount of times. I am particularly compelled to vote on case list/topical version of the aff’s and real world framing arguments, so take from that what you will. However, I have always and will always see framework as a test of the desirability of the aff, and will not put up with “wrong forum” rhetoric. DA’s – I think uniqueness frames the direction of the link usually, please feel free to tell me why I am wrong in round. I really enjoy good politics debates almost as much as I enjoy really specific DAs. CP’s – I really like DA/CP debate and will always view the CP through the lens of net benefit’s unless told otherwise. I have and will vote on super specific PIC’s. I have and will vote on multiple plank CPs. I have and will vote on uniqueness counter plans. I tend to err neg on the subject of theory with CPs, but that does not mean you should be sloppy and not answer theoretical objections. K’s – This is where I am and always was the most comfortable in debates, but please don’t change your style for me. I would enjoy a meta level framing question, but I understand that sometimes teams just don’t want one. Don’t assume I know your author, but don’t butcher evidence either. The more specific the link the better in most debates (or at least make analysis, even if you don’t have a card). Some things to keep in mind:
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: Before round: I have coached and then judged about every genre of argument at many levels of ability. What you run has little meaning to me, and I care care more about your implementation of the strategy. I will almost always think tech over truth, but that doesn’t mean that I will put up with sexist, racist, xenophobic, or heteronormative comments in round. Personally, tech-over-truth is the best way for me to objectively evaluate a debate round, so if you think otherwise, I would encourage that to be a part of your speech. If you are actually reading my phill: I am a super flow centric judge, because I think it’s the most objective way to judge debates. That being said, if you are not involving me in your email chain please take the either verbal or non-verbal pause between cards. A simple “and” between cards will do wonders for you when I have to make a decision. If you use gendered language, you will lose speaks (Edit your evidence, people!). If you misgender your opponent(s) in round, you will lose speaks. If you impose race or gender onto your opponent(s), you will lose speaks. I will almost always view the round through offense/defense unless I have a framing question telling me otherwise. Aff’s – I almost always will default to the fact that I think the aff should be in the direction of the resolution at a minimal, because I don’t think that reading back files from years ago on a policy aff is educational for anyone. That being said, past that I have no preference one way or the other. I stand strong on the idea that if debate was never a space and has never defended you, you should not have to defend anything that you don’t want too. I really enjoy performance aff’s and almost exclusively ran them when I was in HS, but that does not mean that hyper-specific policy aff’s (which I almost exclusively read in college) will not win my ballet, so take from that what you may. One other things to note about the aff’s as I have judged more debates – I think that critical affirmative teams get away with a lot more ground then they usually should in the context of permutations. This does not mean that I won’t vote for a perm or even that I don’t love a good perm debate, but I will likely ask to see your permutation evidence at the end of the round. T/FW – I will default to competing interoperations, because I think it will result in the least amount of intervention. However, if I am given arguments that indicate otherwise or even that I shouldn’t evaluate T, that is a debate to be had on the flow. I have voted for and against framework debates about the same amount of times. I am particularly compelled to vote on case list/topical version of the aff’s and real world framing arguments, so take from that what you will. However, I have always and will always see framework as a test of the desirability of the aff, and will not put up with “wrong forum” rhetoric. DA’s – I think uniqueness frames the direction of the link usually, please feel free to tell me why I am wrong in round. I really enjoy good politics debates almost as much as I enjoy really specific DAs. CP’s – I really like DA/CP debate and will always view the CP through the lens of net benefit’s unless told otherwise. I have and will vote on super specific PIC’s. I have and will vote on multiple plank CPs. I have and will vote on uniqueness counter plans. I tend to err neg on the subject of theory with CPs, but that does not mean you should be sloppy and not answer theoretical objections. K’s – This is where I am and always was the most comfortable in debates, but please don’t change your style for me. I would enjoy a meta level framing question, but I understand that sometimes teams just don’t want one. Don’t assume I know your author, but don’t butcher evidence either. The more specific the link the better in most debates (or at least make analysis, even if you don’t have a card). Some things to keep in mind:
LD
Rounds judged: 18
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I love LD debates from progressive to more traditional understandings. Your rebuttals should include discussions of framework and how you want me to view the round. Offense is good in LD debates also!
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I love LD debates from progressive to more traditional understandings. Your rebuttals should include discussions of framework and how you want me to view the round. Offense is good in LD debates also!
Contact Information
email: logan.kelley@ttu.edu
cell: 806 4747057
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Travel
Region of residence:
7
I will travel to: 1 2 5
