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.

Brooke Hall

Current high school:
Texas Tech University

Currently coaching?: yes

Conference: A

Number of years coached: 2 years

Number of tournaments judged: 4-6

High school attended:
Farwell, Texas

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I competed in prose interpretation at TFA, NFL, and UIL tournaments for four years in high school. I qualified to regional prose interpretation for 4 years in high school. I competed in persuasive extemporaneous speaking for 4 years in high school at UIL, TFA, and NFL meets. I qualified to regional for three years and qualified to the state UIL tournament my senior year where I broke to the final round and received 6th place. I began competing in cross examination debate as an eighth grader and attended TFA and NFL tournaments. I also debated for four years in high school and qualified to TFA State as well as UIL state for three years in a row. My sophomore year I was an octafinalist at the state tournament. My Junior year I received 3rd Place and was the Golden Gavelist. My senior year I was a quarter finalist in cross x debate as well. I consider myself qualified to judge LD Debate because of my experience with cx and am receiving a degree in rhetorical analysis and communication studies in college.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 20
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: First off, I do not come into the debate round with predisposed ideas about certain topics and will vote on whatever is presented in the debate. I will default to stock issues or policy maker if you tell me to do so in round. I'm not a huge fan of the emory shift(splitting the block) and prefer arguments on negative be run in the 1NC. Kritiks are acceptable arguments to me, however should you choose to run a philosophical indictment of the resolution, you had better know exactly what comprises that philosophy and how it relates to the alternative. Stock issues are critical in the round. I will vote on Topicality if there is clear, warranted abuse, but don't run it if it isn't necessary. There are more substantive arguments you could be debating. When it comes to the Counter-plan debate make sure that on the negative it is mutually exclusive and has multiple net benefits. Tests of competition are key. I will vote on procedural and theory arguments if not properly answered. DA's should have deep internal links and should not be super generic. Make sure that you do the work to extend your arguments into the rebuttals, that is not my job. I will not pull arguments across the flow for you. Rebuttals are not constructives, therefore I do not care to hear you read cards in these speeches, only reference authors when necessary. If you drop arguments in the 1AR do not try to be sneaky and pick them back up in the 2AR. I have no problem with speed, however it is important that you understand the arguments be able to explain them not just spread cards you don't understand. Students can ask questions if they have any further questions about my paradigm. good luck.


Rounds judged: 5-7
Approach: Equal

Contact Information

cell: 806 206-3659

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 7 8