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.
Rhonda Smith
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 22
Number of tournaments judged: 3
High school attended:
Winnsboro High School
Graduated high school: 1985
Participated in high school: No
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I coached students for more than twenty years, having students compete and have success in every UIL event.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp as well as policy debate. I have been coaching since 1999. I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round. I'm pretty straightforward: I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own. I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist. I am okay with counterplans/alternatives, PICs, Disads are good if they’re well flushed out. In short, I’m okay with arguments that are well warranted and impacted, preferring quality over quantity. I want to see clash from the negative. I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp as well as policy debate. I have been coaching since 1999. I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round. I'm pretty straightforward: I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own. I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist. I am okay with counterplans/alternatives, PICs, Disads are good if they’re well flushed out. In short, I’m okay with arguments that are well warranted and impacted, preferring quality over quantity. I want to see clash from the negative. I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.
LD
Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp as well as policy debate. I have been coaching since 1999. I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round. I'm pretty straightforward: I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own. I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist. I am okay with counterplans/alternatives, PICs, Disads are good if they’re well flushed out. In short, I’m okay with arguments that are well warranted and impacted, preferring quality over quantity. I want to see clash from the negative. I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I coached at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp as well as policy debate. I have been coaching since 1999. I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know. My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts. I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round. I'm pretty straightforward: I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own. I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist. I am okay with counterplans/alternatives, PICs, Disads are good if they’re well flushed out. In short, I’m okay with arguments that are well warranted and impacted, preferring quality over quantity. I want to see clash from the negative. I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.
Contact Information
email: rhondaesmith22@gmail.com
cell: 214 6214879
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
District
Regional
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 2 5 6
