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.
James Newman
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 2
Number of tournaments judged: 1
High school attended:
Sherman High School
Graduated high school: 2015
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I have been involved in debate in some capacity since my Freshman year in high school. Debate is a passion of mine, an event I take quite seriously. I am most experienced with Public Forum and CX, but I have also competed in and judged LD. I competed in debate and other speech events in college.
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: When judging CX I consider myself to be a Hypothesis Tester because I recognize the enormous burden of proof placed on the AFF team to support the resolution as it is stated. Policies that veer far away from the scope of the topic tend to lose credibility with me when deciding the winner of a round. The AFF team must disprove the status quo and provide a substantive and realistic policy which fully and satisfactorily addresses the resolution. Sportsmanship is also important to me. Although it is rarely the case, if it turns out that both teams are equally matched in terms of quality of evidence and persuasion, I will select the winner based on which team demonstrated superior sportsmanship.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
During LD events I tend to take somewhat of a 'tabula rasa' approach and set aside my presuppositions of philosophy that I have developed over my lifetime. Debaters have the burden of accurately and clearly defining their value and criterion to me as a judge. In other words, when debaters are making a moral argument they are responsible for defining the argument and its relevance to the resolution.
Contact Information
email: jnewman03@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Travel
Region of residence:
6
I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 6 7 8
