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.
Colter Heirigs
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: Out of State
Number of years coached: 7
Number of tournaments judged: 15
High school attended:
Aberdeen Central HS
Graduated high school: 2010
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I have coached Speech & Debate for 7 years specializing in CX/Policy Debate & Extemp. I have also coached LD for a handful of years.
I am a frequent judge of CX, LD, and IEs.
I competed in Policy Debate, Extemp, & Interp for all 4 years of High School where I won a State Championship in Policy Debate and made it to the late elimination rounds of NFL Nationals twice.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy:
Paradigm: My goal is to make a decision with as little judge intervention as possible. Debaters should take 30-45 seconds @ the top of their 2AR & 2NR and explain why they have already won the debate to me. The ideal 2AR/2NR writes my ballot for me. I am willing to vote on any argument that is well explained and impacted out. I am even willing to vote on inherency alone if the aff plan has already happened. High-theory / post modernist Ks are probably an uphill battle for me, so are Consult CPs. I enjoy good Topicality debate. Plutonic ideal 2NR is probably probably DA + Case attacks/turns (or CP). I enjoy rewarding teams that I can tell have worked hard to produce case specific strategies. Complete CX Paradigm found here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=25422
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I am a flow judge, and very much so a blank slate for LD, only caveats: -I have a lower propensity to vote on theory, and have a tendency to hack for substance in LD. -I probably think AFF needs to defend the whole resolution. My goal is to render a decision with the least judge intervention possible. In your last speech you should be explicitly telling me why you have won the round. Speed is fine, I’m about 7 of 10 on speed. Slower for online debate. Overexplaining > underexplaining. Assume I haven’t read your authors. It’s just as easy to win under your opponent’s Value/Criterion as it is your own with me in the back, but please be explicit and deliberate about it. Tell me why you’ve won under X framework. I don't really have any stylistic preferences, but have found that more "traditional" debaters that defend a value/criterion have a higher success rate of winning in front of me vs. LARPers.
Contact Information
email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 2
