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.

Brett Hopkins

Current high school:
Lone Star College Kingwood

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 7-10

High school attended:
Kingwood Park High School

Graduated high school: 2009

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
1. I did LD for three years in high school 2. I did CX through high school and while did not compete a lot I kept up with it and have judge countless rounds of it. 3. I have done parli debate in college which is mostly just policy debate 4.I did extemp for 3 years in high school and am now currently doing it in college. 5. I went to UIL state for LD and was ranked 6th 6. I made it to regional in LD every year I competed for UIL(3 years) 7. I made it to regional every year in Persuasive Extemp each year I competed(3 years) 8. I in my senior year had 4 TFA state points in LD I now independently "coach" a CX team from Kingwood park

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 10
Judging approach: policy maker
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: A LITTLE ABOUT ME: PAST THE ARGUMENT Foremost there are a few things that I as the judge expect to see of you guys as debaters. They are things that I cannot do in the round only you can, and they will help me as the judge as well as making it a fun round. First off just some common courtesy in the round. I expect you as competitors of UIL to be dressed nicely in a full suit, or at least nice pants, shirt, and tie. DO NOT have your sleeve's rolled up and half of your shirt hanging out of your pants. Second be friendly to your opponents, I know this is debate, but that does not mean that you have to bite off each others heads. Who knows maybe you could make a friend or two out of one round, it has happened to me. Now for some of the technical debate things that I will want from you. To start off I want a roadmap at the beginning of each speech. It is rude and confusing to both me and your opponents to just jump right into your speech. Second SIGNPOST when you move onto a new argument like T to DA I want you to tell me that, and signpost it for me. Also in the rebuttals when extending an argument and weighing it I want to know where you are, so signpost that. That leads me to EXTENDING! I need you to properly extend your arguments. Tell me why they should be extended and looked at in the round, if you dont I wont weigh them as a judge and I will just not look at it. That leads to my last debate technicality MAKE THE ARGUMENT! Make an argument in the constructive if you want to extend it over in the rebuttal's. If you think something is a great argument you need to tell me. I will not make the argument for you. If it is not ink on my flow and it does not have an arrow coming from it; that means you didnt say anything about it, or dropped it in the round. I will not do the work for you, I did three years of debating, its time for you to tell me why YOU should win. Now as speakers I expect 3 things from you in the round. One I need you to slow all the way down to normal speaking speed (if you are going just a little bit fast) and read off your tagline and author name. These are what I flow primarily and this means I have a cleaner flow to make decisions off of. Second I need you to say "is the judge ready?" I have had people start their speech's and I dont even have a timer set or a pen in my hand. That is the easiest way to make me mad. Just look at me and make sure I am ready for you to speak. Finally just know that I keep time as well and my timer is right 100% of the time. This really is a minor thing, but I have had debaters complain in the past about it. I keep time for my own sake. Now for me as a judge; well that's short, first off I am a policymaker judge so I really look to the old school arguments such as Disadvantages and Counter Plans. I will judge off of who has at the end of the day a better impact calculus. CX debate is a comparative of two worlds the AFF or the NEG world. I love when debaters will show me what world I should want to live in. I look to see which team can show me which world I would want to live in even though there is some bad in it. STARTING OFF: THE AFFIRMATIVE STOCK ISSUES: This is basically your one and only job as the affirmative is to defend your stock issues and go down the flow and tell me why they matter more than everything the neg has said. I really like focus on the solvency and add-ons of course to tell me why it should outweigh the NEGS arguments. 2AC: I really like to see 2AC add-ons and advantages to be read off. I think it makes the debate more educational and all around fun. It also makes the impact calculus wider and more interesting to weigh and look at. To me I know its gonna be a good debate when the 2AC brings something new to the table while hitting the old. Don't feel like you have to read off 3 add-ons just to please me though. I understand you have limited time; one is enough for me because I know you have to get to the 1NC arguments. DISADVANTAGES: OK just to make it very clear; I love disads because they, in my opinion, make for some of the most interesting arguments. This part of the paradigm is very simple. In a disad I look to it as a big part of the impact calculus and expect you to tell me so. I do not care how many DA's you run as long as I can understand them and you are not spreading. If you can make your impacts either 1. very interesting or 2. Very funny you will definitely go up in my books. Now that still means you have to show me it should still outweigh. COUNTER PLANS: This section is of course very short as well. A counter plan also, in my opinion, leads to many open arguments. I love to see counter plans run with DA's. I don't really know many debaters than don't do those already though. When reading off the text I want to know why it is either mutually exclusive, or what the net benefits are. You need to clearly tell me why it is competitive. At the end of the day tell me why the CP has more advantages than the AFF does. Also if you get into a permutation situation then really tackle it head on; because perms are one of the biggest things I look at, so defend against it well. KRITIKS: OK so as a judge I have such a high threshold for K's that it is probably a good idea not to run them around me. If you can find a huge violation with your opponents rhetoric and its blatantly obvious, then sure run one, but run it well or I wont vote for it. I simply believe that K's take away from the debate itself. Because the NEG has to abandon all other arguments to run the K it leaves the debate with one argument to float around, and I just think that ruins the amount of debate and education you could be getting from the round. I truly think that there are more pressing issues in the AFF to debate rather than saying that they are going to cause genocide because they said the word "people" wrong. TOPICALITY: I say if you have it and its there then run it. I like topicality a lot if it is actually useful; meaning that the AFF is clearly non topical. I dont really like it when people just run T for the sake of running it, but if you do that and I know you are doing it then dont worry I am not gonna discard it, I will listen to it and take it into consideration. That is also something you need to know if you run T against me, that T is up to the judges discretion. I have had a team come up to me and complain because I did not buy into their T. They said it was a good definition and off of the standards I should have voted for them. It is always up to the judge to decide if the standards or the counter standard was better. You run it knowing that the judge will be the final choice, which is why as debaters, you have to sell it to me. THEORY: I have a medium threshold for theory arguments, so if you feel that you need to run them then please do so. I like the premise behind the theory argument itself, obviously not all the abuse of debate can be put into a handbook, so I think theory allows for fairness. I don't hold any negative connotation to theory. If I simply dont buy into it then it will go away and it wont hurt you in the round. I DO NOT vote off of theory, I repeat it is not a voting issue for me. If you see something abusive and you run theory on it then I will either ignore that argument that is abusive or watch it critically through the round. If the AFF can prove that it is not abusive then the argument will come back onto my flow. TO CLOSE: So at the end of the round I love to see three things from both teams. One I love to see an impact calculus. I believe as policy maker judge that this is my most important tool when making my decision, so make sure to really sell it. Second I like to hear voters that stem off from the Impact calculus. This is a section of really selling the weighing mechanism to me. Finally after all the speech's I like to see debater's shake each others hands and tell each other that it was a good round. It is true no matter what because any round is better than no round at all.

LD

Rounds judged: 14
Approach: Equal
Philosophy:
A LITTLE ABOUT ME: PAST THE ARGUMENT Foremost there are a few things that I as the judge expect to see of you guys as debaters. They are things that I cannot do in the round only you can, and they will help me as the judge as well as making it a fun round. First off just some common courtesy in the round. I expect you as competitors of UIL to be dressed nicely in a full suit, or at least nice pants, shirt, and tie. DO NOT have your sleeve's rolled up and half of your shirt hanging out of your pants. Second be friendly to your opponents, I know this is debate, but that does not mean that you have to bite off each others heads. Who knows maybe you could make a friend out of one round, it has happened to me. Now for some of the technical debate things that I will want from you. To start off I want a roadmap at the beginning of each speech. It is rude and confusing to both me and your opponents to just jump right into your speech. Second SIGNPOST when you move onto a new argument like observation 1 to your value criterion I want you to tell me that, and signpost it for me. Also in the rebuttals when extending an argument and weighing it I want to know where you are, so signpost that. That leads me to EXTENDING! I need you to properly extend your arguments. Tell me why they should be extended and looked at in the round, if you dont I wont weigh them as a judge and I will just not look at it. That leads to my last debate technicality MAKE THE ARGUMENT! Make an argument in the constructive if you want to extend it over in the rebuttal's. If you think something is a great argument you need to tell me. I will not make the argument for you. If it is not ink on my flow and it does not have an arrow coming from it; that means you didnt say anything about it, or dropped it in the round. I will not do the work for you, I did three years of debating, its time for you to tell me why YOU should win. Now as speakers I expect 3 things from you in the round. One I need you to slow all the way down to normal speaking speed (if you are going just a little bit fast) and read off your tagline and author name. These are what I flow primarily and this means I have a cleaner flow to make decisions off of. Second I need you to say "is the judge ready?" I have had people start their speech's and I dont even have a timer set or a pen in my hand. That is the easiest way to make me mad. Just look at me and make sure I am ready for you to speak. Finally just know that I keep time as well and my timer is right 100% of the time. This really is a minor thing, but I have had debaters complain in the past about it. I keep time for my own sake. NOW HOW I SEE THINGS AS A JUDGE: FRAMEWORK: I see the framework of the debate being a burden of the affirmative. What I mean by that is that some debaters on certain resolutions like to use different views. For example some people will take a resolution and look at it through a lens of two worlds. Meaning that simply looking at the world of the Aff and the Neg, which one is better? Some look at the debate as having to follow step by step the process of how the negative changed the status quo that was the affirmative. For one empirical example this years SEP/OCT TFA resolution is "States ought not posses nuclear weapons." Now some people when presenting cases said that we must simply compare the two worlds. Others would say no you have to look at how the Neg disarmed the nuclear weapons to get to the end result. I again find it up to the Aff to define this framework. If the Neg has a problem with it they can refute it and I will take it into consideration. Just know that if I don't buy into your arguments against the frame work; then alot of your other arguments will probably fall as well. VALUE AND CRITERION DEBATE: This is the part of the debate that I weigh with the utmost magnitude. I focus more so on the criterion or "standard" debate. This is what I look for in a basic LD round when dealing with these two things. One I look mainly to the criterion for how I should weigh the round. This is how you as debaters meet your value and is what your contentions are based upon. If you win this part of the debate then you are in good shape. That means that I am weighing the round off of your standard and seeing the round from your view. If you can also link into your opponents standard then that is almost a guaranteed win for you. Your value is important as well. As a debater you are telling me the judge that in this round we should all value morality, justice, etc. You need to sell this to me as to why I should believe this through your contention debate and how you meet it with your criterion. If you can link into your opponents value as well then again almost a guaranteed win. CONTENTION DEBATE: This section is quite simple really. When dealing with the contentions I want to see every contention to be linked back to the V&VC debate. These are the arguments you are making to support the value and criterion to begin with. I want to see all the reasons that I should look to your side laid out very nice and neat. When debating in the rebuttal's I want to see good line by line analysis as to why your opponents arguments are not right and why yours still are. At the end of the day I want to hear the contentions and all the arguments and think; I should vote for this person because XYZ was said. THE LAST SPEECH WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO: In both of the debaters last speech's I want to hear three things. One I want to get an impact calculus; that may sound a little CX like, but this is what I mean. I just want all the major arguments in the round to be wrapped up and presented to me by both sides and told why yours matter more. You need to weigh the arguments for me. I need to know if the balance goes AFF or NEG because that will tell me what side my pen circles on the ballot. Second I want to hear voters that stem off of that impact calculus; this is where you really have to sell the Value and Criterion to me as well as the arguments in the round. Finally I want a quick wrap up of everything that has happened so far and why you should come out on top. AFTER THE ROUND: Very minor, but I feel that it has to be said. At the end of the round I would like for both debaters to shake hands. If you have a problem with shaking hands obviously that's OK, but I think it just common courtesy to do it otherwise. I also want to hear that it was a good round no matter what; because it is. Keep in mind that any round is better than no round at all.

Contact Information

email: Bretthopkins48@yahoo.com
cell: 832 7679110
office: NA

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
Extemp
CX
LD

Travel

Region of residence:
Area 3 Houston/Beaumont

I will travel to: 1 2 3