UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
- Both the Aff and Neg cases should be very clearly framed around a value and criterion, and debaters should reference back to these in the different phases of the round. I will almost always vote for the debater with the more organized, logical, and persuasive framework, even if it means a low-speaks win. - Contentions should be used to demonstrate impactful (and real-world, if applicable) examples of the framework in action. Debaters should ALWAYS explain how their contentions philosophically reinforce their stance on the resolution through the value and criterion. - Debaters should be sure that EVERY claim in the round is linked to well-cited evidence. If one side claims that something the opposing side said is inaccurate or not true, they should present GOOD evidence to that effect. - When listing voters, I frown on debaters that harp on trivial points that the opposition dropped. I vote on substantive arguments, so each side should be clear about what really mattered in the round. Each side should explain why I should prefer their voters over the opponent’s. - Debaters should avoid spreading, Kritiks, and other theoretical trickery. LD debate should be a discussion of clashing philosophical values. There can be no clash if nobody understands what either side said, or if the spirit of the resolution is ignored. - I have no issues giving a default win if I feel that one side or the other has egregiously violated the letter or the spirit of the rules, but these violations (real or perceived) should not be used by either debater as a point of argument during constructives or as a main voter in rebuttals. - Above all, debaters should be respectful to their opponents, try to have fun, and enjoy the round!

Region of residence:
4

I will travel to: 1 4