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.

Daniel Hatoum

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 4-6

High school attended:
Lindale High School

Graduated high school: 2009

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
Extemp- I have competed for the last five years in extemp, three years in high school and two years in college. I went to NFL in Domestic Extemp my Junior year of High school, I competed at 4A UIL state in persuasive extemp my senior year. My freshmen year of college I qualified for the AFA national tournament in extemp, and I won the Phi Rho Pi national tournament in extemp. This year I have qualified for the AFA and NFA national tournaments in extemp. CX I have 3 years of Cross-examination debate experince in highschool, and a year of Parli experince in college. Last year at Phi Rho Pi nationals I competed in the Semi Final round of Parli. LD 1 year of High school experince My parli experince is also important. The rules in parli make it so a person has to learn both value and policy debate, since there is a new resolution each round, and it could be either a policy or value round. Again, I was a semi-finalists at a nationals tournament last year in parli.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 17
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: I call myself Tab, but really I'm kind of like a Policy judge that really likes Kritiks (a lot) and will vote on T. I'll explain further by listing the different arguments, and explaining how I feel about them. Case-It needs big impacts. It can be kritikal. Kritiks-RUN THIS. Seriously, my favorite argument, I absolutely love them. That being said, make sure you properly refute any offense on the K's. I may love it, but I'll still vote it down. A well run kritik, that is properly defended, will always win my ballot. Counter Plans-I really like these too. I do heavily evaluate the theory debate here though. For example, if you run a topical counter plan and they run "topical counter plans bad" you will need to refute that to win the counter plan (or not lose on abuse arguments.) Same logic works for conditional counter plans, and the perms that the neg may run. DA-These should be your net benefits to the majority of your counter plans. I like these a lot, they are good offense and can be run alone as well. I also like Politics, so feel free to run that too. Topicality- Not my favorite argument, but I will vote on it if abuse is proven, but abuse MUST be proven. That means neg has to kick out of something to prove abuse. Hint for negative: you will not win T without kicking something that proves your abuse story. I will vote for "T is not a voter" and "T is a reverse voter." This all applies to spec arguments as well. Stock Issues-DON'T...unless they are turns. YOU WILL NOT WIN ON INHERENCY, HARMS, OR SOLVENCY TAKE OUTS (unless it is coupled with one of the above offense arguments). I'll buy solvency and Harms turns though (because they are offense). So don't run defense without offense. Speed-The faster you talk, the more I like you.


Rounds judged: 3
Approach: Issues
I'm tab, run what you want, and explain to me what you are voting for. Don't mess up philosophy in front of me, or you will lose speaker points.

Contact Information

cell: 903 539-7129

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 1 Austin/San Antonio

I will travel to: 1