UIL Speech Judges

Judging qualifications:
I have previously coached WSD, LD, and Policy in an official capacity as a teacher. I have also judged in the TFA circuit, NSDA, UIL, and national level UDL tournaments. I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD. I am now the co-head coach at Irma Rangel YWLS along with Kris Wright. TLDR: I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs. General notes: Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean. I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain. Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw. Logistics: Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). Except if we're in outrounds (Policy), slow down. I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand. Please don't put yourself in the position of not having a certain ballot from me because of lack of clarity. Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness. In case you have questions about a specific type of argument: WSD - Please give a roadmap or some form of signposting. You cannot ask POIs during protected time which is the first and last minute of the first three speeches. Also, no follow up questions in WS are allowed. I think often debaters lack weighing under the framework, please do this weighing and comparative work of impacts, or reasons to prefer your side of the motion. Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework. Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact. Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism. Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech. Theory/ T/ Tricks- I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round, so proceed with awareness. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.