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.
Sara Ratliff
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 0
High school attended:
Chapel Hill High School - Mount Pleasant
Graduated high school: 2014
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I am the Texas State LD champion from years 2013 and 2014 for the AA division, and medaled in the state finals for extemp and Congress events. I very much enjoyed my time in debate, and since graduating, have worked in Washington D.C. for the House of Representatives and Executive branch. Speech and debate changed my life, and I want the opportunity to share the impact it had with other students. I believe everyone in speech and debate has the opportunity to develop a high caliber view of the world and critical thinking skills, especially when it comes to viewing current events and the future of geopolitical atmospheres.
I am moving back to Texas before the end of the year, and would enjoy reconnecting with the folks and rising students in this realm! Thank you for considering me.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Stock Issues
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: LD is my love language, however growing up on a team that had excellent CX debaters, I learned to prioritize the organization and delivery of the arguments and evidence. Meaning, applauding folks who could present stock issues and subsequent evidence in order down the flow without communicating in a chaotic way. My least favorite public speakers are those who raise their volume or rate of speech to increase their rapport with a judge instead of remaining organized and thoughtful in their presentation and delivery of arguments and supporting cards.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I am not a values only judge - every argument on the flow should be addressed if possible. While the relationship between the value and criterion are the foundation of a case, I disagree that they should always be the priority. I consider dropped / unanswered arguments when judging a round. Philosophy is a founding principle for LD, but not without complementary, real world application. When it comes to critiques / Ks, they aren’t my favorite. They can either come across as a short cut to skirt the meat of the issue behind the resolution, or a cruel strategy to spook opponents. However, when delivered well and tied to real world scenarios, I believe presenting and / or defending against a K is great practice for any debater.
Contact Information
email: sara@sararatliff.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1 2 3 6
