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.
Pamela Johnson
Current high school:
Mont Belvieu Barbers Hill
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 2
High school attended:
Barbers Hill High School
Graduated high school: 2018
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I competed in speech and debate for Barbers Hill High School for four years. I did LD for my first year, and CX for the remaining three. I competed in extemporaneous speaking for all four years, and I did prose and poetry from my Sophomore to Senior year. While participating in CX, I qualified for UIL CX State and TFA State for three years in a row, and I competed at NSDA Nationals in CX debate for my Sophomore and Junior years. I have broken twice at UIL CX State and at TFA State. I continue to compete in debate for Lee College, and I judge tournaments whenever I am not competing. Last year, I judged at the 2019 TFA State Championship in Houston.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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 consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa in the sense that I am willing to listen and vote on any argument, but I prefer whenever the policy debates are centered around policy themselves. My favorite off-case arguments are polished and updated politics disads that have great link contextualization, especially when they are paired with a mutually exclusive CP. As I stated earlier, I am opening to listening and voting on K's, Theory, and even topicality, but the key to these arguments is explaining them clearly and cohesively, so that I understand their weight in the round. I am fine with Kritikal Aff's as well, but I prefer hearing traditional plans. I am fine with speed as long as it is clear. Also, I strongly dislike it when debaters are rude to each other for the sake of being rude. Try to make the debate a fun experience and be nice. I will dock speaks for excessive rudeness.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa in the sense that I am willing to listen and vote on any argument in LD. I really enjoy framework debates in LD, especially when there are different interpretations of values. It is pretty influential in the way that I vote in the round. My favorite off-case arguments are polished and updated politics disads that have great link contextualization, especially when they are paired with a mutually exclusive CP. As I stated earlier, I am opening to listening and voting on K's, Theory, and even topicality, but the key to these arguments is explaining them clearly and cohesively, so that I understand their weight in the round. I am fine with Kritikal Aff's as well, but I prefer hearing traditional plans. I am fine with speed as long as it is clear. Also, I strongly dislike it when debaters are rude to each other for the sake of being rude. Try to make the debate a fun experience and be nice. I will dock speaks for excessive rudeness.
Contact Information
email: Pammienicole333@gmail.com
cell: 630 8158492
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
CX State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Travel
Region of residence:
3
I will travel to: 1 2 3 5
