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.
Katelyn Yim
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 0
High school attended:
Aledo High School
Graduated high school: 2019
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I participated in CX debate for 3 years. In those 3 years I made it to UIL state 2 times. I am experienced in most of the forms of arguments; T, CP, theory, and DA. I have ran Ks before but I do not have an extensive knowledge in the literature for the more obscure types. Debater's can argue whatever they want and I am unbiased in my assessment of the argument even if it is something that I would not typically agree on. In terms of style I have ran from planking and stocks cases to aff Ks in my high school career, so any style of debate will not be offputting to me. Spreading is not a problem for me in terms of understanding the content of a speech. As a debater I have a wide range of knowledge in debate and would like to continue to use it in a different form while I am in college. In my later years of my debate experience I spent time mentoring underclassmen and can well explain arguments and the lesser known topics of debate itself. I enjoyed debate a lot during high school as a participant and am excited to see the other side and help people grow their cases and their debating capabilities.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I have a high threshold for T's I believe that unless an aff is blatantly violating the resolution and neg argues it well and points it out I won't vote on it. I can understand theory but unless someone believably argues for excessive and unfair amounts of abuse I won't vote on it. CP's are fine and they can even be PIC's but the neg must prove that they uniquely solve for a problem better than the aff and have standing net benefit at the end of the debate. The neg can win on DA's in any form but there must be a logical chain of cards to the impact for me to vote on it and the impact must be depicted as something greater than the solvency of the aff. Kritiks are acceptable to me as long as the logic and impacts are well explained but there must be a clearly defined link (preferably multiple) to the aff and they either must have a well explained alternative that addresses their kritik or their impact has to be extensively built upon. Aff can win as long as they address all of the off case arguments in a sensible manner and have solvency and impacts. If either side doesn't at least bare bones extend their cards to their important arguments I will not vote for the argument that is not extended. In terms of speaking style and speed I can understand most but I do not believe that those aspects are deciding factors in winning a debate but only for speaker points.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I don't have a lot of experience in this area but I believe that the aff must well support the resolution and the neg must provide the juxtaposition. I prefer cards as support to cases but if there is a good analytical argument that is well established I will vote on that.
Contact Information
email: katelyn.yim@tamu.edu
cell: 817 3661060
office: n/a
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Travel
Region of residence:
4
I will travel to: 1 2 4 5
