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.
Benjamin Wolf
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 1
Number of tournaments judged: 15-20
High school attended:
Winston Churchill
Graduated high school: 2017
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I debated for four years at Winston Churchill in San Antonio and I have experience with a wide variety of events. I qualified to UIL CX state a couple of times and was the 6A runner-up (2nd) at UIL CX State my senior year. I also qualified to TFA State three times in CX and to NSDA Nationals three times in CX. I also qualified to the Tournament of Champions in LD. I also did well in extemp at various local tournaments. For over 5 years now, I have been judging most weekends, mainly in CX and LD. I have judged at all levels of competition from national circuit TOC bid tournaments to small town UIL locals.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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: I would like for debaters to be polite and cordial to each other. I do not have any specific dispositions for or against any argument. I want to see a good debate, which typically means debaters should go for whatever arguments they like and know the best. I will judge the round according to the framework and impact weighing arguments made in the round. I enjoy when advocacies (CP, K alt, permutations, etc.) are well explained. I have a full paradigm available on Tabroom.com if you want to know more.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I would like for debaters to be polite and cordial to each other. I do not have any specific dispositions for or against any argument, so I will judge according to the framework and impact weighing arguments made in the round. However, I come from a mainly CX background, so if you are reading a traditional LD philosophy case, please focus on explaining your framework and impact weighing. I want to see a good debate, which typically means debaters should go for whatever arguments they like and know the best. I enjoy when advocacies (CP, K alt, permutations, etc.) are well explained. I have a full paradigm available on Tabroom.com if you want to know more.
Contact Information
email: benwolf8@gmail.com
cell: 210 8729670
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1 3 4 5 8
