UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I am an entry-level judge with a extensive academic background. I hold a J.D., master's degrees in Criminal Justice, History, Curriculum & Instruction, and Educational Leadership, a bachelor's in Sociology, and I am currently completing a Doctorate in Ministry. While I can easily process complex legal, historical, ethical, and societal arguments, I am completely new to competitive speech and debate mechanics. Treat me as a highly educated "lay" or "traditional" judge. I consider myself to be completely open minded when it requires to be open minded. I judge quality over quantity and cannot effectively judge speakers when they speak in rapid fire. I value deeply explained points over rushed arguments. I look for evidence to support a claim including why and how evidence supports the claim. I also consider the quality of evidence as well as a range of evidence. When a speaker gets tongue tied, loses their place in their speech, or another type of mishap; I do not deduct points as I remain focused on the quality but also consider how well they recover and continue forward. In a debate forum I look for the person speaking, and asking questions, to stand. I also consider the actions of students towards each other and do not tolerate sneers, laughing, bullying, and other types of disrespectful behavior towards other students. I want students to view me as a judge with a blank slate. I am analytical, look for sound logic, and want students to tell me why I should vote for their side to win. Additionally, in regards to feedback, I prefer to provide a 3:1 ratio of positive reinforcement to critical (with suggestions for improvement). I am willing to judge all categories of speech and debate.

Region of residence:
5

I will travel to: 1 2 5