UIL Speech Judges

Rounds judged: 6
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
FLincoln Douglas Debate: Framework (FW): Framework is essential in LD. Both debaters must present a clear framework that explains how I should evaluate the round. If only one debater presents a framework, I will default to that. If both present frameworks, you must weigh and compare them—explain why your framework is preferable. I am open to traditional or progressive frameworks, but make sure your framework interacts with the rest of the round rather than standing alone. Value & Criterion (V/C): Since LD is a values debate, your value and criterion must be explicitly linked to your case. I prefer well-warranted justifications for why your standard is the best way to evaluate the round. If your V/C does not interact with your arguments, I will have a harder time voting for you. Be sure to weigh competing criteria instead of expecting me to do the work for you. Topicality (T): I evaluate T seriously—if you run it, be clear on standards and abuse stories. LD resolutions are broad, so make sure you articulate why a certain interpretation best upholds fairness and education. I will listen to competing interpretations, but Aff must justify why their case is within the bounds of the resolution. If Aff doesn’t engage with the topicality argument, I will default to the neg’s interpretation. Theory: I’m comfortable with theory, but it needs to be well-warranted and impact justified. If you run a shell, make sure it includes a clear violation, standards, and voters. Blippy or undeveloped theory won’t be weighed heavily. I’m open to anything, but you need to make a strong case for why theory was run abusively. If a theory shell is dropped, I will default to the interpretation that remains in the round. Kritiks (Ks): I will vote for Ks, but they must be clearly articulated and justified in an LD context. You need a framework explaining why I should evaluate the debate through a critical lens rather than a policy-based one. The alternative must be explained in a way that solves the harms outlined in the K. If Aff engages well with the K and turns it, I will evaluate those turns just as I would any other argument. Don’t assume I will do the work for you—explain why the K should be the lens through which I view the round. Counterplans (CPs):I am open to CPs in LD, but they must be clearly justified as competitive and net beneficial. If Aff argues that CPs are abusive in LD, I will listen, but they need to make a strong theoretical argument against them. If the CP is not mutually exclusive or lacks a clear net benefit, I will be more inclined to reject it. Aff must provide a well-explained perm if they wish to take out the CP. Disadvantages (DAs): DAs are valid in LD but must be clearly linked to the Aff case. Generic DAs with weak links will not carry much weight. If Aff successfully proves a no-link or non-unique argument, that can take out the DA. A DA must also have a strong impact story to be weighed against Aff’s case impacts. Comparative weighing between case impacts and DA impacts is key—don’t leave it up to me. Philosophy/Abstract Arguments: I enjoy well-explained philosophical arguments, but they must be clearly tied to the framework and impacts in the round. Dropping dense philosophy without explaining its relevance won’t get you far. If you run complex philosophy , make sure it is accessible and directly applicable to the resolution. Weighing: Weighing is crucial in LD. Tell me why your arguments matter more than your opponent’s. If you don’t do this, I will default to my own judgment, which may not be in your favor. Weigh impacts (magnitude, probability, timeframe) as well as value-level arguments. Speaker Points & Delivery: Clarity matters. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you. Speed is fine if clear, but if you spread without signposting, you risk losing arguments. Be persuasive—LD is about philosophical and value-based argumentation, not just technical debate. Respect your opponent. Aggressive behavior or hostility will result in lower speaks. Cross-Examination (CX): I do not flow CX, so if you get a concession in CX, bring it up in a speech. CX should be used strategically to clarify, set up arguments, and create strategic traps—not just to flex rhetorical skills. Tech v Truth: I am a tech over truth judge, so unless you tell me something---I will believe the facts given to me in round are true.

Region of residence:
1

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 8