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.
Jordan Fitzwater
Current high school:
Nevada Community
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: 4a
Number of years coached: 4
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Community High School
Graduated high school: 2012
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
High School 2008-2012
4 years High School debate CX 1 Year state (2012)
1 year of LD never at the district level
2 years of Prose
1 year of Duo
College 2012-2013
1 year of CEDA and NDT debate at Liberty University
Judged in the Virginia Debate circuit for 3 years in College CX policy and LD debate.
Coaching 2019-2023
Started coaching students in debate in 2019, non-competitively, first competitive team was in '20-'21
This is my 4th year teaching debate for Community HS.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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: Tabula Rasa I view the round more or less as a Tabula Rasa judge, but you can run just about anything. I'm pretty flexible I just need to know what your talking about, why its important, and what impact is has in the round. Pen down means your judge isn't following your argument. Spreading at a speaking event makes no sense, but I'll listen to it as I grew up with it in round. Spreading Theory blocks I listen to a lot because this is a speaking event and I have to give you speaker points. Theory I'll vote on it, but it has got to be obvious and perfectly executed. The logical ground work must be there as well as standards and voters. The K I'm more of a realist, so abstract Alts are just that to me... abstract. real world Alts are good. I'll listen to the K because I'm a bit of a games player judge as well. Be sure you give me framework and do the mental and logical leg work. Stock Issues I like a clean clashing rounds. If you can give me that, more quality evidence over quantity, and have a good strat and build in the 2NR (no shotgun arguments), you can have the ballot. I WANT SUBSTANCE! T Topicality is a necessary portion of debate, but one thing I really hate is time suck T's. Although, if the other team is obviously off topic, you better throw a T. DA Love disads because most of the time they actually make sense. Humanity is consequentialist by nature so this is the most accepted argument for a reason. I am ok voting for a generic disad if you can make it stick really well. The more specific the better though. Practical impacts are better than the oh so common, nuclear war scene, but I will vote on nuclear war if it sticks in the round and you actually pull its weight across the debate. Just saying "drag across the impact of nuclear war" isn't going to cut it. GIVE ME SUBSTANCE, GIVE ME THE STORY.
LD
Approach:
Philosophy:
Lincoln Douglas Touch on every contention. You should be able to keep a solid flow and touch everything. I use observations as framework in the round so point me in the right direction. Neg must clash, AFF must prove. If you want to provide a separate framework, let me know. IF you want me to vote for one contention over another you need to weigh that in round. For LD its all about ground work.
Contact Information
email: jordan.fitzwater@communityisd.org
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
Congress Region
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
6
I will travel to: 2 6