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.
Miriam Patton
Current high school:
Vanderbilt Industrial
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: 3A
Number of years coached: 7
Number of tournaments judged: 4
High school attended:
Austin High School
Graduated high school: 1972
Participated in high school: No
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I have judged CX for 12 years as a school judge. I have attended Capital Conference and been certified as a CX judge and have attended the last 7 Capital Conferences and sat in on the CX topic overviews from Dr. Edwards as well as sessions on LD and Congress. I've coached LD since 2012 and took over coaching CX last year. I've coached Congress for the last 5 years and qualified a state participant twice in that time. I've judged a couple of Congress rounds during that time.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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 believe that CX is a form of communication. Excessive and distracting speed, as well as rudeness, has no place in the competition. If you go too fast and I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. If you're rude to your opponent, I will be less likely to vote for you, no matter how convincing you think you are. I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. Topicality is a stock issue that I will vote on but as a policy judge, no matter how well constructed it is, I am less likely to vote on it, especially if it is technical. I prefer on-case DAs rather than generic ones. Well thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. New in the 2 is fine.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
LD is a value debate and thus the winning debater will have shown that their case supports the highest value in the round. I do not think LD is one person policy debate but if you're going to present empirical evidence to support your positions, cite your references. If the case hinges on empirical evidence, newer is better than older. On the other hand, if you are presenting evidence about your value and its significance, any date is fine with me but the person you are citing becomes more of an issue.
Contact Information
email: mpatton@industrialisd.org
cell: 321 7812673
office: 361 2843226
Availability Information
Meet types:
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
4
I will travel to: 1 3 4 5
