UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 0
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: I generally default to tab in rounds because I have found that many students do not attempt to adhere to what I say when I tell them my paradigm, which shifts between policymaker and games-player. I am the most concerned with advantages and disadvantages, but I must also be convinced of the real necessity of the specific proposed plan/counterplan. Additionally, I disprove of using less than savory tactics to try to gain an unfair advantage in a debate, such as speaking too quickly or unclearly for the other team to hear and take notes on to properly respond to, or failing to provide requested proof of evidence to the other team in an argument. I believe that debate is a learning experience above all else, and by failing to understand the other person results in removing a critical element out of learning. I do not like hearing arguments that serve to waste time, such as many abuse arguments (although some are necessary for reasons I just mentioned). I prefer a debate that is clean-cut, tasteful, and void of highly improbable hypothetical scenarios thrown out just for the sake of trying to stump the other team. Finally, unlike many other judges I have encountered, I am very interested in the use of kritiks in policy debate, and I think that when executed correctly add spice and an extra worthwhile challenge to the mix.

email: maranda.spencer@mavs.uta.edu
cell:
office:

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet Congress Region Congress State

Qualified for:
CX
Congress