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.
Emily Jackson
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 2
Number of tournaments judged: 9
High school attended:
Plano Senior High School
Graduated high school: 2016
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I have competed in and coached LD and CX in high school and competed in NFA-LD extensively in college, as well as attending tournaments in CX in college. I am a 3 time TIFA state NFA-LD champion, and I currently work for the Triumph Debate Institute as a brief writer, camp staff, and content creator.
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 generally default first to whoever is winning the highest layer of debate, with procedurals like topicality operating as layers above substance. If that produces no winner, I resolve substance using the weighing of each team. Teams should properly weigh impacts in order for me to resolve them in reference to their opponent's impacts, and should especially make this weighing clear in the rebuttals. I utilize an offense/defense paradigm for weighing substance. Speed is fine, but I value strategic choice first- debaters should be able to make smart decisions and communicate them well.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I generally default first to whoever is winning the highest layer of debate, with procedurals like topicality operating as layers above substance. If that produces no winner, I resolve substance using framework as an impact filter. For framework, I see the value as the question the resolution is asking (and not the most important thing in a vacuum, which makes it difficult to weigh values) and the criterion as the way to reach the value. Generally I will resolve framework first, and then evaluate the round under the winning framework. If neither debater has what would constitute offense under the winning framework, I evaluate the round under the losing framework. In short, I utilize an offense-defense paradigm where offense is defined by the framework. I generally appreciate framework and philosophical debate, and I appreciate these elements of LD being used strategically and communicated well.
Contact Information
email: emilujackson@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 2 6
