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.
Cody Morrow
Current high school:
Colleyville Heritage
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: 6A
Number of years coached: 20+
Number of tournaments judged: 13
High school attended:
Bridgeport High School
Graduated high school: 1992
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
In high school I won the UIL state tournament in LD in class 3A and 2nd place in persuasive speaking in 1992... At TFA state I was the top seed and the Top speaker in LD. At nationals I advanced to the quarter finals in US extemp.
In College I cleared at 3 NDT's, advanced to Octo's once, and received a first round at Large bid in 1998... I cleared at 3 CEDA nationals (only attended 3) where I advanced to Octo's twice and Quarter's once. I was the 4th speaker in 1998 and 8th speaker in 2000.....
I have coached winners and top speakers at most of the major national tournaments, Dallas are TFA tournaments, many UIL invitationals, numerous TFA state championships and numerous UIL state qualifiers and late elimination participants.
I am an assistant policy coach at St. Mark's of Texas. I coach LD and PF at Colleyville Heritage High School. Also, I privately consult/tutor/work with a few teams and individuals.
I have judging paradigms on tabroom.com. I enjoy and love debate. I coach and judge numerous styles and approaches to policy and LD based on regional variations and the circuits each team/student competes on. I do not believe that there is a RIGHT or WRONG way to debate. I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, this in no way means that you have to speak slowly. I do think the resolution of issues in each debate is very important. Dropped arguments are true arguments the vast majority of the time. I will flow the entire debate and my flow will be the blue print from which I make my decision.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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: In policy I typically default to the role of being a policy maker, but in no way am I unwilling to take on a different role/perspective... If this comes down to a frame work debate I split when judging these debates... literally around 5o%.... Impact assessments and comparisons are a good idea. I enjoy counterplan and DA/NB debates... Process cp's are not my favorite thing in debate. I enjoy high level critical debates, but if you do not have a grasp of the material you are debating about then possibly you should run something else. I will vote on topicality... you need to do a good job developing the ground/fairness/clash/education standards (you obviously dont need to go for all of these in a debate). Case lists are a good idea.. I can be persuaded to side with reasonability if the affirmative does a good job demonstrating how the interpretation overlimits the topic... Sometimes when the appropriate arguments are made I can be persuaded to evaluate that I should be concerned about what the affirmative does and what they justify. Arguments need to be unique.... I tend to think indepth debate is better for education than breadth or shallow discussions about many things. Good luck! Be nice to each other... I have judging paradigms on tabroom.com. I enjoy and love debate. I coach and judge numerous styles and approaches to policy and LD based on regional variations and the circuits each team/student competes on. I do not believe that there is a RIGHT or WRONG way to debate. I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, this in no way means that you have to speak slowly. I do think the resolution of issues in each debate is very important. Dropped arguments are true arguments the vast majority of the time. I will flow the entire debate and my flow will be the blue print from which I make my decision.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
LD - When i debated LD was traditional with debates primarily focused on values, criterion, and contentions that supported the resolution and further supported the value/criteria debate... Recently on some circuits LD has in some cases changed in many aspects. I will evaluate the debate based on how the two debaters in the room choose to debate. If the debate becomes a debate about the styles then that is up to the debaters. I am not predisposed to either style. I hope we can debate about the topic and everyone engage in making smart arguments. The 1NC needs to respond to the affirmative arguments.. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Not answering the affirmative until the negative rebuttal is too late breaking and precludes in depth debating because only the 2AR can respond, instead if you make your arguments in the NC then the 1AR can respond and you can respond in the NR and the 2AR can respond to those NR arguments. Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round. I will be as fair as humanly possible. Good luck everyone! I have judging paradigms on tabroom.com. I enjoy and love debate. I coach and judge numerous styles and approaches to policy and LD based on regional variations and the circuits each team/student competes on. I do not believe that there is a RIGHT or WRONG way to debate. I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, this in no way means that you have to speak slowly. I do think the resolution of issues in each debate is very important. Dropped arguments are true arguments the vast majority of the time. I will flow the entire debate and my flow will be the blue print from which I make my decision.
Contact Information
email: codymorrowtx1@gmail.com
cell: 940 3897490
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
6
I will travel to: 1 2 4 5 6 8
