UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 4
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: POLICY/CX EVALUATION Framework - Unless presented with a compelling framework argument, I evaluate based on the following stock issues: topicality, inherency, significance of harms, and solvency. It should be noted that I deny the possibility of tabula rasa, and as such, I concede that the evaluation of any framework argument relies on a meta-framework that otherwise lends itself to conventional stock issues. In other words, the way I think has led me to evaluate debate according to conventional stock issues; thus, even if presenting a competing framework, one should always try to appeal to that same primordial logos that made possible and is perhaps indicated by my association with those stock issues. Kritiks - As with framework arguments, I accept and will vote on kritiks. Be aware that I can be highly critical to particular kritiks, and I will always expect that the kritik does not contradict other arguments run by the team. E.g., I wouldn't want to hear a biocentricism K in one breath and a biofuels CP in the next. For me, these occurrences tend to cancel out both arguments, as I'm bereft of a standard with which to prioritize one argument over another. Counterplans - I accept topical and non-topical counterplans. If a framework isn't provided, I resort here to looking for comparative advantages and will vote on them. Disadvantages - I have no problem with generic disadvantages, granted that links are established. Speech - Give me roadmaps, signpost, and don't spread faster than you can enunciate clearly every single word. I'm not concerned with appearance or elements of public speaking beyond communicability, i.e. eye contact, hand gestures, etc. If, however, you manage to get across your ideas and do so with style, well then that obviously can't hurt your speaker points. But in terms of win/loss, these aren't ever voters. Decorum - Rude behavior will result in the deduction of speaker points. I regret to witness the refusal of answering questions during cross examination (this includes repetitive dodging or disingenuous responses). No prompting of any kind will be allowed. I will keep time if necessary, but I will never provide time signals. As a rule, refrain from speaking in the first-person, unless as part of a kritik. Don't whisper-yell at your partner. Treat everyone with respect and help keep things educational.

email: dnic95@icloud.com
cell: 409 7309337
office:

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry