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.
Josh Benstowe
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 4
Number of tournaments judged: 0
High school attended:
Trinity High school
Graduated high school: 2012
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
Fairness: Fairness is paramount in the judging process. I strive to evaluate each participant objectively, without bias or prejudice. Every competitor deserves an equal opportunity to present their arguments and skills.
Constructive Feedback: I believe in providing detailed, constructive feedback to participants, focusing on both their strengths and areas for improvement. Feedback should be specific, actionable, and aimed at helping competitors grow and develop their skills.
Respect: I approach every round with respect for the hard work, dedication, and passion that competitors bring to the table. Respect for the diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of participants is essential in creating a positive and inclusive competitive environment.
Education: Speech and debate serve as powerful tools for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and communication skills development. I view judging not only as a means to determine winners but also as an opportunity to facilitate learning and growth for all participants.
Integrity: Integrity is non-negotiable in the judging process. I adhere to high ethical standards, maintaining honesty, transparency, and accountability in my evaluations and interactions with participants.
Overall, my philosophy as a speech and debate judge centers on creating a supportive, equitable, and intellectually stimulating environment where participants can thrive, learn, and achieve their full potential.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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: Clarity and Organization: I prioritize clear, concise, and well-structured arguments. Debaters should effectively articulate their points, present evidence logically, and maintain a coherent line of reasoning throughout the round. Analysis and Depth: I value depth of analysis over sheer quantity of arguments. Debaters should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic, provide insightful analysis, and engage in critical thinking to support their positions. Evidence and Warranting: I expect debaters to support their arguments with relevant evidence and warrants. Evidence should be cited accurately, and debaters should explain the significance and implications of their evidence within the context of the debate. Clash and Rebuttal: I look for debaters who engage with their opponents' arguments effectively, identifying points of clash and providing substantive rebuttals. Debaters should address opposing arguments directly, pointing out weaknesses and inconsistencies while strengthening their own positions. Communication and Etiquette: I value respectful and professional communication among debaters and adherence to time limits. Debaters should engage in constructive dialogue, avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior, and maintain decorum throughout the round. Flexibility and Adaptability: While I expect debaters to adhere to their prepared strategies and arguments, I also appreciate adaptability and flexibility in response to shifting dynamics or unexpected arguments raised by opponents.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
Value and Criterion Analysis: I prioritize the clash between the debaters' value and criterion frameworks. Debaters should clearly articulate their value premise and criterion for decision-making, and effectively demonstrate how their arguments uphold their chosen framework. Logical Reasoning: I value logical reasoning and coherence in argumentation. Debaters should present logically sound arguments, supported by evidence and reasoning, to advance their positions and refute their opponents' claims. Ethical Considerations: I consider the ethical implications of the arguments presented. Debaters should demonstrate ethical awareness and sensitivity in their arguments, avoiding fallacious reasoning or appeals to unethical tactics. Clash and Rebuttal: I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash with their opponents' arguments. Debaters should provide thorough rebuttals, identifying weaknesses in their opponents' logic and evidence while bolstering their own case. Persuasive Communication: I value clear, persuasive communication. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, employ rhetorical devices judiciously, and engage the judge and audience with compelling arguments and analysis. Fairness and Respect: I prioritize fairness and respect in the debate round. Debaters should treat their opponents with respect, adhere to the rules and conventions of LD debate, and avoid engaging in behavior that undermines the integrity of the debate.
Contact Information
email: joshua.Benstowe@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
3
I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5
