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.
G Gillenwaters
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 8
Number of tournaments judged: 10
High school attended:
Jack C. Hays High School
Graduated high school: 1983
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
Participated
CX UIL State Finalist
CX TFA State Broke
Judged
CX multiple TFA/UIL Tournaments, Including Finals
LD multiple TFA/UIL Tournaments, Including Finals
Extemp multiple TFA/UIL Tournaments, Including Finals
Prose/Poetry multiple TFA/UIL Tournaments
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 10
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: Debate Paradigm (Most Applies to PF, LD, and CX) Tabula Rasa Judge that is old enough to know that he has inherent biases but typically does not allow them to influence his decision. Despite being a Tabula Rasa Judge 30+ years ago when most were stock issue, I am now slowing moving back to the realization that stock issues are important and there is a reason that they were/are "stock" issues. CX State Finalist during the stone tablet era, LD debater during HS. Debated briefly in college before I realized that it was more profitable not to. Masters of Science in Engineering from UT, Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from SWT. Have judged for several years including at UIL/TFA state. As a CX debater I have more preference for "Logic and Analysis" than "Bleeding Heart", but will vote for either. I don't disclose before eliminations, if you ask I will know that you have not read my paradigm. Want to see clash and refutation. Speaker points will be decreased if you only read your pre-written arguments in rebuttals, I want to hear why the opponent's arguments are wrong or do not apply. I want to see good sign posting and going down the flow from top to bottom (unless there is a good reason not to). Like to see arguments numbered so they can be easily extended or responded to - but that apparently is lost from debate. Presentation: Debate should fun and done in a professional manner. I prefer speakers that stand while speaking, have at least minimal eye contact with their opponent(s) and judge(s), show good sportsmanship to teammate and opponents, avoid objectionable language, avoid repugnant ideas, don’t be disruptive during opponent’s speech or prep., offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round, affirmative should be on judges left, and most of all have fun. FOLLOWING those guidelines will lead to high speaker points. Organization: Organization is critical to me. DO signpost clearly during your speech if you want my ballot, DO NOT provide an exhaustive roadmap before speaking. A off-time roadmap should be less than 10 seconds, otherwise it can become a timed road map. Plans/Counter Plans: Much more likely to vote on if you actually say what you are going to do. The devil is in the details and no debater anymore seems to give any details and frequently seems to make it fungible as the debate progresses. DA’s should have good impact comparisons. At the end of the round I may be weighing the advantages of the affirmative plan versus the disadvantage impacts. I do not often vote for DA’s that have a minuscule chance of occurring. Speed: Debate is a speaking event and as such you need to present it verbally in a coherent fashion and not rely on "flashing" the evidence. That said, I debated and can flow fast. Just make sure you enunciate clearly, if I can not understand your speech, it will not be flowed and will not count. The faster you speak the more important it is to be organized, signpost effectively, and change tone/speed to emphasize the major points. I do not say "clear", but if I put down my pen you have a good indication. It is important to pay attention to your audience. K's: Did not exist when I debated, however I have judged many rounds with K's and will vote for them if the debater makes a good case for them. Make sure it applies to the topic or specific case presented. Not tolerant of K's without good specific links. Not fond of K's that can be run on Aff & Neg or on any year's topic. Debate should be educational and if I feel they are being run due to laziness it will affect your speaker points. Theory: Familiar with and have voted on, but not an expert on. Just make sure you explain it clearly. Voters: Like them, want to hear them in the "last speech only". Presentation: Stand during your speech. Make occasional eye contact. Framework: If I am given a solid framework and you win the framing debate, I will use that for my voting decision. Framework is not by itself a voting issue. Topicality: Topicality will be viewed based on competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise. The quality of the definitions is critical. Evidence: Sources matter! More recent evidence is more relevant than dated. Quality of evidence is more important than quantity. Absence a clear superiority in quality the more quantity and more varied the sources will win. Performance: Never seen, take your chances. CX: I have seen some major admissions in CX that could easily win the round, but frequently they are not brought up later in the debate. If you get an admission or find a logical hole in the opponent's argument, bring it up in rebuttals so I can vote on it otherwise I won't. Open-CX: I do not like open-CX because it often shows a major weakness in one (or both) of the team members resulting in lower speaker points. Teammate should be prepping for their speech, not asking questions. That said, I do not care at all if all debaters agree BEFORE the round begins. DO NOT start mid-round. Progressive concepts like Flex-Prep are okay as long as it is asked and agreed on by both opponents before the round begins. It can not begin mid-round. Verbage: Debate is a speaking event, do not assume the judge knows as much as you do. The first time you use an acronym (like RVI or PIC), you should explain what it is or I might "forget" (due to Alzheimer's) and not be able to vote on it. Flashing: I am not a fan of flashing due to the excessive delays it causes in 50% of the rounds. That said, it is now part of debate and I have no objection to if both parties agree. Timing: Cross-Ex time begins when the opponent says "open to CX," not 60 seconds later when you have had time to think about it and say "Okay time starts now." Likewise, prep. time begins as soon as CX is over, not 45 seconds later when you say "start prep time now." If you are not at the podium ready to speak you are prepping. I will not penalize you prep. time for flashing data as long as “I” do not think it is excessive, otherwise you will be billed the entire flashing time as prep. Feel free to talk to me BEFORE the round if you have any questions.
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: Debate Paradigm (Most Applies to PF, LD, and CX) Tabula Rasa Judge that is old enough to know that he has inherent biases but typically does not allow them to influence his decision. Despite being a Tabula Rasa Judge 30+ years ago when most were stock issue, I am now slowing moving back to the realization that stock issues are important and there is a reason that they were/are "stock" issues. CX State Finalist during the stone tablet era, LD debater during HS. Debated briefly in college before I realized that it was more profitable not to. Masters of Science in Engineering from UT, Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from SWT. Have judged for several years including at UIL/TFA state. As a CX debater I have more preference for "Logic and Analysis" than "Bleeding Heart", but will vote for either. I don't disclose before eliminations, if you ask I will know that you have not read my paradigm. Want to see clash and refutation. Speaker points will be decreased if you only read your pre-written arguments in rebuttals, I want to hear why the opponent's arguments are wrong or do not apply. I want to see good sign posting and going down the flow from top to bottom (unless there is a good reason not to). Like to see arguments numbered so they can be easily extended or responded to - but that apparently is lost from debate. Presentation: Debate should fun and done in a professional manner. I prefer speakers that stand while speaking, have at least minimal eye contact with their opponent(s) and judge(s), show good sportsmanship to teammate and opponents, avoid objectionable language, avoid repugnant ideas, don’t be disruptive during opponent’s speech or prep., offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round, affirmative should be on judges left, and most of all have fun. FOLLOWING those guidelines will lead to high speaker points. Organization: Organization is critical to me. DO signpost clearly during your speech if you want my ballot, DO NOT provide an exhaustive roadmap before speaking. A off-time roadmap should be less than 10 seconds, otherwise it can become a timed road map. Plans/Counter Plans: Much more likely to vote on if you actually say what you are going to do. The devil is in the details and no debater anymore seems to give any details and frequently seems to make it fungible as the debate progresses. DA’s should have good impact comparisons. At the end of the round I may be weighing the advantages of the affirmative plan versus the disadvantage impacts. I do not often vote for DA’s that have a minuscule chance of occurring. Speed: Debate is a speaking event and as such you need to present it verbally in a coherent fashion and not rely on "flashing" the evidence. That said, I debated and can flow fast. Just make sure you enunciate clearly, if I can not understand your speech, it will not be flowed and will not count. The faster you speak the more important it is to be organized, signpost effectively, and change tone/speed to emphasize the major points. I do not say "clear", but if I put down my pen you have a good indication. It is important to pay attention to your audience. K's: Did not exist when I debated, however I have judged many rounds with K's and will vote for them if the debater makes a good case for them. Make sure it applies to the topic or specific case presented. Not tolerant of K's without good specific links. Not fond of K's that can be run on Aff & Neg or on any year's topic. Debate should be educational and if I feel they are being run due to laziness it will affect your speaker points. Theory: Familiar with and have voted on, but not an expert on. Just make sure you explain it clearly. Voters: Like them, want to hear them in the "last speech only". Presentation: Stand during your speech. Make occasional eye contact. Framework: If I am given a solid framework and you win the framing debate, I will use that for my voting decision. Framework is not by itself a voting issue. Topicality: Topicality will be viewed based on competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise. The quality of the definitions is critical. Evidence: Sources matter! More recent evidence is more relevant than dated. Quality of evidence is more important than quantity. Absence a clear superiority in quality the more quantity and more varied the sources will win. Performance: Never seen, take your chances. CX: I have seen some major admissions in CX that could easily win the round, but frequently they are not brought up later in the debate. If you get an admission or find a logical hole in the opponent's argument, bring it up in rebuttals so I can vote on it otherwise I won't. Open-CX: I do not like open-CX because it often shows a major weakness in one (or both) of the team members resulting in lower speaker points. Teammate should be prepping for their speech, not asking questions. That said, I do not care at all if all debaters agree BEFORE the round begins. DO NOT start mid-round. Progressive concepts like Flex-Prep are okay as long as it is asked and agreed on by both opponents before the round begins. It can not begin mid-round. Verbage: Debate is a speaking event, do not assume the judge knows as much as you do. The first time you use an acronym (like RVI or PIC), you should explain what it is or I might "forget" (due to Alzheimer's) and not be able to vote on it. Flashing: I am not a fan of flashing due to the excessive delays it causes in 50% of the rounds. That said, it is now part of debate and I have no objection to if both parties agree. Timing: Cross-Ex time begins when the opponent says "open to CX," not 60 seconds later when you have had time to think about it and say "Okay time starts now." Likewise, prep. time begins as soon as CX is over, not 45 seconds later when you say "start prep time now." If you are not at the podium ready to speak you are prepping. I will not penalize you prep. time for flashing data as long as “I” do not think it is excessive, otherwise you will be billed the entire flashing time as prep. Feel free to talk to me BEFORE the round if you have any questions.
LD
Rounds judged: 50
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
Debate Paradigm (Most Applies to PF, LD, and CX) Tabula Rasa Judge that is old enough to know that he has inherent biases but typically does not allow them to influence his decision. Despite being a Tabula Rasa Judge 30+ years ago when most were stock issue, I am now slowing moving back to the realization that stock issues are important and there is a reason that they were/are "stock" issues. CX State Finalist during the stone tablet era, LD debater during HS. Debated briefly in college before I realized that it was more profitable not to. Masters of Science in Engineering from UT, Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from SWT. Have judged for several years including at UIL/TFA state. As a CX debater I have more preference for "Logic and Analysis" than "Bleeding Heart", but will vote for either. I don't disclose before eliminations, if you ask I will know that you have not read my paradigm. Want to see clash and refutation. Speaker points will be decreased if you only read your pre-written arguments in rebuttals, I want to hear why the opponent's arguments are wrong or do not apply. I want to see good sign posting and going down the flow from top to bottom (unless there is a good reason not to). Like to see arguments numbered so they can be easily extended or responded to - but that apparently is lost from debate. Presentation: Debate should fun and done in a professional manner. I prefer speakers that stand while speaking, have at least minimal eye contact with their opponent(s) and judge(s), show good sportsmanship to teammate and opponents, avoid objectionable language, avoid repugnant ideas, don’t be disruptive during opponent’s speech or prep., offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round, affirmative should be on judges left, and most of all have fun. FOLLOWING those guidelines will lead to high speaker points. Organization: Organization is critical to me. DO signpost clearly during your speech if you want my ballot, DO NOT provide an exhaustive roadmap before speaking. A off-time roadmap should be less than 10 seconds, otherwise it can become a timed road map. Plans/Counter Plans: Much more likely to vote on if you actually say what you are going to do. The devil is in the details and no debater anymore seems to give any details and frequently seems to make it fungible as the debate progresses. DA’s should have good impact comparisons. At the end of the round I may be weighing the advantages of the affirmative plan versus the disadvantage impacts. I do not often vote for DA’s that have a minuscule chance of occurring. Speed: Debate is a speaking event and as such you need to present it verbally in a coherent fashion and not rely on "flashing" the evidence. That said, I debated and can flow fast. Just make sure you enunciate clearly, if I can not understand your speech, it will not be flowed and will not count. The faster you speak the more important it is to be organized, signpost effectively, and change tone/speed to emphasize the major points. I do not say "clear", but if I put down my pen you have a good indication. It is important to pay attention to your audience. K's: Did not exist when I debated, however I have judged many rounds with K's and will vote for them if the debater makes a good case for them. Make sure it applies to the topic or specific case presented. Not tolerant of K's without good specific links. Not fond of K's that can be run on Aff & Neg or on any year's topic. Debate should be educational and if I feel they are being run due to laziness it will affect your speaker points. Theory: Familiar with and have voted on, but not an expert on. Just make sure you explain it clearly. Voters: Like them, want to hear them in the "last speech only". Presentation: Stand during your speech. Make occasional eye contact. Framework: If I am given a solid framework and you win the framing debate, I will use that for my voting decision. Framework is not by itself a voting issue. Topicality: Topicality will be viewed based on competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise. The quality of the definitions is critical. Evidence: Sources matter! More recent evidence is more relevant than dated. Quality of evidence is more important than quantity. Absence a clear superiority in quality the more quantity and more varied the sources will win. Performance: Never seen, take your chances. CX: I have seen some major admissions in CX that could easily win the round, but frequently they are not brought up later in the debate. If you get an admission or find a logical hole in the opponent's argument, bring it up in rebuttals so I can vote on it otherwise I won't. Open-CX: I do not like open-CX because it often shows a major weakness in one (or both) of the team members resulting in lower speaker points. Teammate should be prepping for their speech, not asking questions. That said, I do not care at all if all debaters agree BEFORE the round begins. DO NOT start mid-round. Progressive concepts like Flex-Prep are okay as long as it is asked and agreed on by both opponents before the round begins. It can not begin mid-round. Verbage: Debate is a speaking event, do not assume the judge knows as much as you do. The first time you use an acronym (like RVI or PIC), you should explain what it is or I might "forget" (due to Alzheimer's) and not be able to vote on it. Flashing: I am not a fan of flashing due to the excessive delays it causes in 50% of the rounds. That said, it is now part of debate and I have no objection to if both parties agree. Timing: Cross-Ex time begins when the opponent says "open to CX," not 60 seconds later when you have had time to think about it and say "Okay time starts now." Likewise, prep. time begins as soon as CX is over, not 45 seconds later when you say "start prep time now." If you are not at the podium ready to speak you are prepping. I will not penalize you prep. time for flashing data as long as “I” do not think it is excessive, otherwise you will be billed the entire flashing time as prep. Feel free to talk to me BEFORE the round if you have any questions.
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
Debate Paradigm (Most Applies to PF, LD, and CX) Tabula Rasa Judge that is old enough to know that he has inherent biases but typically does not allow them to influence his decision. Despite being a Tabula Rasa Judge 30+ years ago when most were stock issue, I am now slowing moving back to the realization that stock issues are important and there is a reason that they were/are "stock" issues. CX State Finalist during the stone tablet era, LD debater during HS. Debated briefly in college before I realized that it was more profitable not to. Masters of Science in Engineering from UT, Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from SWT. Have judged for several years including at UIL/TFA state. As a CX debater I have more preference for "Logic and Analysis" than "Bleeding Heart", but will vote for either. I don't disclose before eliminations, if you ask I will know that you have not read my paradigm. Want to see clash and refutation. Speaker points will be decreased if you only read your pre-written arguments in rebuttals, I want to hear why the opponent's arguments are wrong or do not apply. I want to see good sign posting and going down the flow from top to bottom (unless there is a good reason not to). Like to see arguments numbered so they can be easily extended or responded to - but that apparently is lost from debate. Presentation: Debate should fun and done in a professional manner. I prefer speakers that stand while speaking, have at least minimal eye contact with their opponent(s) and judge(s), show good sportsmanship to teammate and opponents, avoid objectionable language, avoid repugnant ideas, don’t be disruptive during opponent’s speech or prep., offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round, affirmative should be on judges left, and most of all have fun. FOLLOWING those guidelines will lead to high speaker points. Organization: Organization is critical to me. DO signpost clearly during your speech if you want my ballot, DO NOT provide an exhaustive roadmap before speaking. A off-time roadmap should be less than 10 seconds, otherwise it can become a timed road map. Plans/Counter Plans: Much more likely to vote on if you actually say what you are going to do. The devil is in the details and no debater anymore seems to give any details and frequently seems to make it fungible as the debate progresses. DA’s should have good impact comparisons. At the end of the round I may be weighing the advantages of the affirmative plan versus the disadvantage impacts. I do not often vote for DA’s that have a minuscule chance of occurring. Speed: Debate is a speaking event and as such you need to present it verbally in a coherent fashion and not rely on "flashing" the evidence. That said, I debated and can flow fast. Just make sure you enunciate clearly, if I can not understand your speech, it will not be flowed and will not count. The faster you speak the more important it is to be organized, signpost effectively, and change tone/speed to emphasize the major points. I do not say "clear", but if I put down my pen you have a good indication. It is important to pay attention to your audience. K's: Did not exist when I debated, however I have judged many rounds with K's and will vote for them if the debater makes a good case for them. Make sure it applies to the topic or specific case presented. Not tolerant of K's without good specific links. Not fond of K's that can be run on Aff & Neg or on any year's topic. Debate should be educational and if I feel they are being run due to laziness it will affect your speaker points. Theory: Familiar with and have voted on, but not an expert on. Just make sure you explain it clearly. Voters: Like them, want to hear them in the "last speech only". Presentation: Stand during your speech. Make occasional eye contact. Framework: If I am given a solid framework and you win the framing debate, I will use that for my voting decision. Framework is not by itself a voting issue. Topicality: Topicality will be viewed based on competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise. The quality of the definitions is critical. Evidence: Sources matter! More recent evidence is more relevant than dated. Quality of evidence is more important than quantity. Absence a clear superiority in quality the more quantity and more varied the sources will win. Performance: Never seen, take your chances. CX: I have seen some major admissions in CX that could easily win the round, but frequently they are not brought up later in the debate. If you get an admission or find a logical hole in the opponent's argument, bring it up in rebuttals so I can vote on it otherwise I won't. Open-CX: I do not like open-CX because it often shows a major weakness in one (or both) of the team members resulting in lower speaker points. Teammate should be prepping for their speech, not asking questions. That said, I do not care at all if all debaters agree BEFORE the round begins. DO NOT start mid-round. Progressive concepts like Flex-Prep are okay as long as it is asked and agreed on by both opponents before the round begins. It can not begin mid-round. Verbage: Debate is a speaking event, do not assume the judge knows as much as you do. The first time you use an acronym (like RVI or PIC), you should explain what it is or I might "forget" (due to Alzheimer's) and not be able to vote on it. Flashing: I am not a fan of flashing due to the excessive delays it causes in 50% of the rounds. That said, it is now part of debate and I have no objection to if both parties agree. Timing: Cross-Ex time begins when the opponent says "open to CX," not 60 seconds later when you have had time to think about it and say "Okay time starts now." Likewise, prep. time begins as soon as CX is over, not 45 seconds later when you say "start prep time now." If you are not at the podium ready to speak you are prepping. I will not penalize you prep. time for flashing data as long as “I” do not think it is excessive, otherwise you will be billed the entire flashing time as prep. Feel free to talk to me BEFORE the round if you have any questions.
Contact Information
email: GGillenwaters@GMail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1 4 5
