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.
Logan DeBord
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 9
High school attended:
Vanderbilt Industrial
Graduated high school: 2011
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
CX - state champion in 2011 and former golden gavelist. Have judged over 200 rounds since 2012, including the state tournament (both small and large schools) five times. Hired judge for district meets by Linda Alderson.
LD - have judged about 100 rounds since 2012, mostly at the district level but also the regional level twice and state level once. Hired judge by Linda Alderson and Noah Recker.
Extemp and Prose/Poetry - have judged about 50 rounds since 2012, mostly at the district level.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: AFF: I’m a policymaker in the following way: if the harms and advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then that gives me reason to support the Affirmative plan. I like to think about debate in this way because it incorporates all of the stock issues into a simple “for” or “against” vote at the end of the day. For example, having weak Solvency will decrease the extent to which your Harms are factored into my decision. I appreciate lots of offense in the 2AC. NEG: If the disadvantages outweigh the harms and advantages, then that gives me reason to oppose the Affirmative plan. Disads are essential in determining whether a plan is good policy. Provide lots of clash and split the block. Topicality is fair game, but I prefer a legitimate reason for its existence in a round (and expect to devote a significant amount of time to it in the 2NR if you plan to win on it). Counterplans are fine, but they should be nontopical and concede both Inherency and Harms. If you run a K, be sure it’s a meaningful reason to reject the Aff on principle. Give me voters at the end. BOTH: Impact calculus should persuade me WHY your proposed course of action outweighs the alternative. Be realistic with your impacts. Speed-reading is ok if either (1) your opponents can keep up, or (2) it’s necessary to cover all the arguments. You can win me over with recent evidence that you researched yourself.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
You must have both a value and a criterion. Aim to build yours up while undermining those of your opponent. If you’re going to use historical examples, apply them creatively. Uphold your value through the round and tell me why it’s the most significant. My vote will likely be based on a direct quote from your final speech.
Contact Information
email: logan.debord@utexas.edu
cell: 361 7883745
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Travel
Region of residence:
3
I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
