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.
Robert Perry
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 20
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Killeen HS
Graduated high school: 1968
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques, nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality; however, the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counterplan can solve and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of Kritik’s but I will listen, and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed, you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to respond to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques, nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality; however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counterplan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of Kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to respond to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I prefer traditional LD and Value debate sound analysis, links of evidence appropriate to the resolution and criteria should be included in their framework. Impact at the end of each contention and no spreading.
Contact Information
email: rperry989@gmail.com
cell: 1 8322651
office: 817 8322651
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 5 6 8
