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.

Ken Patton

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 16

High school attended:
Houston Milby

Graduated high school: 1978

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: Yes

Judging qualifications:
I competed in Extemp and CX in High school managing to place in several tournaments and even to win some. Highest level achieved was Regional finalist. I obtained an NFL Double Ruby before graduation. I was very active officiating forensic events in the Houston area during and after college until moving in 1991. The foremost skills I bring in judging speech contests is that I am a skilled listener and assessor of what I hear. Since becoming self-employed, I find I now have the time and flexibility to give back to this scholastic competition. I reside in Austin, Texas.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 28
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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: My philosophy is to assess how CX competitors apply their oratory skills with logic and reason to the topic resolution and the arguments being made in the contest. They are judged on how effectively they utilize those skills to answer the rubrics, including significance to the issue, availability/unavailability of a solution within the status quo and whether or not an effective plan could be implemented. Evaluating the critical thinking applied by contestants to logically arrange their arguments is equal to appraising their skills in verbalizing those arguments effectively. Competitors who utilize the cross-examination process to bolster their presentations also tend to rate higher in the contest.

LD

Rounds judged: 8
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
In judging LD debate, the more effectively a communicator brings their position on the resolution in a clear and concise manner will usually have higher ratings and more success. It is inherent in the LD format where the contestant needs to persuade the listener that their position is the superior solution rather than convincing them through a preponderance of evidence. But even eloquent speakers will be bolstered by corroborative authentication. Their words cannot be without substance. Theoretically, at it’s inception, the LD debates were held to convince legislators that one person’s solution to the issues (primarily slavery) were superior to their opponents and made them more qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate. Shouldn't that still be the goal of the LD debater?

Contact Information

email: kpatton85@austin.rr.com
cell: 512 6804086
office:

Availability Information

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

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress

Travel

Region of residence:
1

I will travel to: 1 3 4 5