UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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: Theory (Aff and Neg): Since I am a Policymaker judge, the Affirmative must propose change and the Negative must demonstrate why the plan is a disadvantage. I do not typically vote for theory arguments as it seems to negatively change the course of the debate. If you want to run theory then you need to make sure you are still going to argue the plan/topic of the debate. Overall I do not normally vote up teams who run theory. Topicality (Neg): If you run a Topicality argument, you HAVE to prove why your interpretation is better or you will not win in that argument/section. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative. Please do not just run a T as negation! Disadvantages (Neg): These are my favorite arguments as they provide a debate. Clash is one of the most important aspects of any debate, especially in Cross Examination. I prefer when teams can run more then one disad, but if you only have one to run then that is fine as long as it hits every single aspect of the Affirmatives case. Disadvantages need to attack the STOCK issues of the aff. As negation your burden is to argue EVERY SINGLE point in the affirmative. If you cannot do this then I cannot up vote. Frameworks (Aff and Neg): The Affirmative’s case should always be strategically constructed to set up future impact comparison arguments. If affirmative wants to run framework in the 1AC, it needs to be run in a way to persuade the judge or else it is not needed. When a team makes framework arguments, they must be answered. Giving the other team uncontested control how the judge evaluates the round comes close to conceding. I will up vote if the opponents do not argue the others framework. Counterplans (Neg): Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution. The counterplan must have a net benefit to be upheld. I am more compelled to opt to a counterplan that solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. The CP MUST solve the plan text! Kirtiks (Neg): I will not upvote on a K, if you run a K you will not win. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation, and they always veer off the actual topic of the debate. If I am to accept the "worlds" of the K arguments then it leaves the affirmative with no ground and leaves them not able to argue harm and solvency. Kritik teams like to trick rather then actually debate substance. The negative must solve the link, not argue rhetorical theory. Unless the K is written perfectly, I will default affirmative. Evidence (Aff and Neg): Evidence is one of the most important aspects of debate. NSDA's evidence rule states you must give the specific source (aka, DO NOT PARAPHRASE). Reading evidence and multiple sources of evidence is paradigm to the debate. Evidence is what bring about the clash and debate I judge upon. Being a policymaker judge means that I vote for the team with the best arguments, amount of evidence, and quality of evidence. With this being said, you as a debater need to understand your own evidence. If you do not understand what a card says, then I prefer you to not even read it. I also like teams that do evidence comparison. One of the things I look for is that you can argue that your evidence is more sufficient then your opponents. Lastly as mentioned before, do not paraphrase your evidence, you need to read the evidence and where it is from as is. Style/Speaking (Aff and Neg): Please include me in the email chain (jd.cammiemb@gmail.com), if no email then either paper or flash. As a speaker and debater, you must be clear when speaking about anything in round. I am okay with spreading but if you are clearly not understandable, I will stop you in round. I do not want any open CX in round. In NSDA it is allowed which means you can do so; however both partners must equally speak. In UIL open is not allowed. Profanity and rude/derogatory behavior is not allowed. If you are clearly belittling your opponents I will down vote you, and make sure someone is notified. I will disclose if asked.

email: cammiebee15@gmail.com
cell:
office:

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet Congress Region Congress State

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress