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.
Caleb Ford
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 3
High school attended:
Callisburg ISD
Graduated high school: 2018
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I won first place in informative extemp at UIL State 2018. I placed 3rd in UIL State CX debate in 2017 and 2018.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 6
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: My judging paradigm can be explained as the following: if empirically supported, I will consider any argument a voting issue in the round. Thus, I consider myself to be a tabula rasa judge. I expect the debaters to tell me what basis to vote on. I really enjoy debates that focus on more than just the surface level of the debate - well-structured theory arguments are among my favorite arguments. Kritiks are among my least favorite arguments, as I have seen many run improperly over the years, but that does not mean I will not vote on them if they are run properly. I am totally okay with a stock issues-focused or policy-focused round as well. That being said, I will not give the aff the loss simply for not having all of their stock issues unless the neg can empirically prove that I should do otherwise. Furthermore, I believe being respectful to one another and of other races, cultures, etc. is important. Remember that the other team is your opponent, not your mortal enemy.
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: My judging paradigm can be explained as the following: if empirically supported, I will consider any argument a voting issue in the round. Thus, I consider myself to be a tabula rasa judge. I expect the debaters to tell me what basis to vote on. I really enjoy debates that focus on more than just the surface level of the debate - well-structured theory arguments are among my favorite arguments. Kritiks are among my least favorite arguments, as I have seen many run improperly over the years, but that does not mean I will not vote on them if they are run properly. I am totally okay with a stock issues-focused or policy-focused round as well. That being said, I will not give the aff the loss simply for not having all of their stock issues unless the neg can empirically prove that I should do otherwise. Furthermore, I believe being respectful to one another and of other races, cultures, etc. is important. Remember that the other team is your opponent, not your mortal enemy.
LD
Rounds judged: 3
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
Contact Information
email: calebford@utexas.edu
cell: 940 5365655
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
Extemp
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1
