Skip to main content
Image of UT logo that reads The University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

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.

Dr. Courtney Wright

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: Yes

Conference:

Number of years coached: 15+

Number of tournaments judged: 10-12

High school attended:
F.J. Reitz High School (Evansville, IN)

Graduated high school: 2002

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: Yes

Judging qualifications:
I competed in forensics throughout school. Though I competed in Indiana during high school (Evansville Reitz, 1999-2002), I spent several years coaching at the University of Texas Summer Camp (UTNIF) and am very familiar with UIL. In high school I was in multiple state finals and won the NSDA National Championship in Poetry. In college I competed for Western Kentucky University (2003-2006), advancing to national finals in Persuasion, After-Dinner Speaking, Duo Interpretation, Poetry, and Prose, and won the national championship in Informative Speaking (PKD). I earned MA in Communication Studies from Eastern Michigan University (EMU) and PhD in Media & Communication (focus on rhetoric and argumentation) from Bowling Green State University. I have spent many years coaching interpretation, public address, limited preparation, policy, parliamentary, and Lincoln Douglass Debate at the high school and college levels. I live in Marshall, TX where I am an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication and serve as the Director of Forensics.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Stock Issues
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: I am a fairly traditional policy debate judge. I am trained in critical theory and appreciate critical arguments. I am certainly familiar with policy debate terminologies and can follow debaters who are spreading, but I very much appreciate rhetorical eloquence and a comprehensible delivery. If I miss most of an argument because a debater is spreading, I will likely disregard it. That said, I will also readily raise my hand to notify speakers if I cannot follow. I try to provide thorough feedback and a clear reason for my decision and typically refrain from oral disclosures after the round.

LD

Rounds judged: 10
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I am a fairly traditional policy debate judge. I am trained in critical theory and appreciate critical arguments. I am certainly familiar with policy debate terminologies and can follow debaters who are spreading, but I very much appreciate rhetorical eloquence and a comprehensible delivery. If I miss most of an argument because a debater is spreading, I will likely disregard it. That said, I will also readily raise my hand to notify speakers if I cannot follow. I try to provide thorough feedback and a clear reason for my decision and typically refrain from oral disclosures after the round.

Contact Information

email: cwright@wileyc.edu
cell:
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress

Travel

Region of residence:
6

I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 6