Skip to main content
University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo
University Interscholastic League Logo

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.

Daniel Abbas

Current high school:
University of Oklahoma

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 7-10

High school attended:
Maine East (Des Plaines, IL)

Graduated high school: 2007

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
Debated four years in the Chicago circuit at Maine East, clearing at a litany of local and TOC tournaments. Debated one year at UT-Dallas, qualifying to the NDT and debated two years at Oklahoma, qualifying to the NDT. Have been in the outrounds every time at CEDA. I have judged UIL state once in the past, while I was coaching for Law Magnet (Dallas, Texas).

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 50
Judging approach: policy maker
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Abbas%2C+Daniel Kritiks: I'm unfamiliar with the literature on kritiks because I'm uninterested. But don't let that discourage you from running them. They should be competitive and have a clear, well-explained advocacy. Also, you should obviously do impact calculus. I err towards the aff on framework questions and whether or not they should be able to weigh their case, but I can be convinced otherwise. Affs should question what the alternative does more. Disads/Counterplans: they're pretty awesome. However, I don't automatically err to offense/defense. I do believe that there is such thing as 'zero risk' of a link and smart analytic arguments can easily beat DAs. Topicality: I tend to lean toward a framework of competing interpretations, but can be convinced otherwise. The aff can prove that they don't make debate impossible for the neg or they provide ample ground. Theory: not the best debates, but if you gotta do it, do it. Reject the argument, not the team usually suffices for the neg, though. Dispositionality and PICs are great. One conditional advocacy is also legitimate. Theory arguments are more persuasive against multiple conditional advocacies, 50-state fiat, delay, and consultation counterplans. Projects/non-traditional debate: I'm not a good judge for this type of debate. I believe the aff should defend a plan based in the resolution.

LD

Rounds judged:
Approach:
Philosophy:

Contact Information

email: dabbas346@gmail.com
cell: 847 4362954
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
CX State

Qualified for:
CX

Travel

Region of residence:
SELECT AN AREA!!!

I will travel to: