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 or 512-471-5883.

Rahfin Faruk

Current high school:
Southern Methodist University

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 7-10

High school attended:
Richardson High School (Richardson, Texas)

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
My main debate activity was extemporaneous speaking, PFD and LD in high school. My main accomplishments were: 2nd in IX, UIL 5A, 2011 LD state qualifier, UIL 5A, 2010 3-Time NFL National Qualifier (Twice in extemp, once in PFD) NFL Degree of Premier Distinction TFA State Qualifier in Domestic Extemp and PFD TFA State Quarterfinalist in PFD, 2010 LBJ NFL District Student of the YEar In college, I have made the transition to policy debate and currently compete in the NDT and CEDA circuits. I am mainly a stock issues debater but analyze and use other important strategies as well.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 8
Judging approach: stock issues
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: Stock issues are of critical importance. If the negative is able to prove that the affirmative is lacking one of the components that make up stock issues, that is grounds for rejection. Per example, the affirmative must be able to prove inherency under attack from the negative. Evidence (especially evidence that is well-warranted and from reliable sources) will be given precedence. Speed without clarity is a reason for lower speaker points. I would not consider myself a tabula rasa judge because I give less credence to certain extreme (and often abusive arguments). Per example, if a team runs a "The" plan inclusive counterplan, I am less likely to vote for that team on the perceived frivolity of the team's argument.


Rounds judged: 12
Approach: Equal
The value and criterion debate is necessary and the debater that is able to provide the most clash in the round (and successfully use the V/C in doing this) will usually have my ballot. The ballot is won by successfully using the philosophical components of the V/C with well-warranted and often empirical evidence in the contention level debate. A debater that has no cites in their case has a lesser chance of winning the round. A debater that does not have good communicative skills (vocabulary, platform position, eye contact, etc.), has a lesser chance of gaining high speaker points.

Contact Information

cell: 469 6939481
office: 469 6939481

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 2 Dallas/Fort Worth

I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 6 8