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.
Rachel Tobes
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 27
High school attended:
Athens High School
Graduated high school: 2001
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I participated in high school and have stayed active in the speech world, judging invitationals through state for nearly 20 years.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
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: I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs. I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, including everyone in the room in the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.) Specifics CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? What other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. Don't only phrase closing arguments as "cross supply" - specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs. I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, including everyone in the room in the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.) LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.
Contact Information
email: racheltobes@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1 2 4 5 6
