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.
Philip-michael Walker
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 13
High school attended:
Athens High School
Graduated high school: 2014
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I have, at one point in time, competed in all of the following events on the high-school and/or college level. I have been competed at several state and national tournaments in the past and thus, I feel comfortable in the the back of the room of any event and tend to keep an open mind when evaluating performance.
Judging Philosophy
CX
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: I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). As for how I feel about certain arguments: Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round. Theory/Topicality: My threshold for theory is pretty high. With that being said, I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I want to know where the in-round abuse is. Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. Disads should be structured well.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). As for how I feel about certain arguments: Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously. Argumentation: Offense that is impacted out and linked back to the framework is needed in order for me to make a clean decision. If there is none, I will begrudgingly vote on terminal defense.
Contact Information
email: phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com
cell: 903 2922363
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
6
I will travel to: 1 2
