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.

Zamzam "Samsam" Jama

Current high school:
Graduated From Texas A&M University

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 11 or more

High school attended:
A&M Consolidated High School

Graduated high school: 2003

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I have competed, judged, and coached for 10 years. I've also judged at the past 3 CX state competitions.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 100+
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: I consider myself Tabula Rasa to some extent, in that i will go for whichever side has the best analysis, storyline, and performance. It’s important to note, however, that I have a strong tendency on voting for Theory arguments such as Kritiks and Framework arguments, if there is a strong link and the competitors can fully grasp of the meaning behind the authors’ intent in the Kritiks; which again is often reflected in the presentation. I rarely vote on Topicality unless there is obvious abuse, and I often frown upon conditional arguments but again at the end of the day the round is what the competitors make it and the tools they enable me to use to determine the win (Judging mechanism is a necessity such as Calculus Impact, Moral Imperative, etc). I love CLASH above all else thus I am open to DAs, CPs, Counter-DAs, Counter-Kritiks, etc. At the end of the day, Debate is still a form of Speech and as such the performance must reflect that. I expect all the speeches and cross examinations to be done standing up, more importantly I allow NO Verbal Prompting to be done as stipulated by UIL rules!! Speed isn’t an issue for me; however I also, don’t believe spreading should be used as a strategy against a team that cannot spread! Naturally speed is going to be used at some point so I ask that you keep in mind what UIL rules dictate about spreading.


Rounds judged: 50+
For the most part my paradigm is the same; I’m still an open slate to be directed by the presentations/visions of each debater. Much like CX, I like to see 3 things: 1. What I call CONSTRUCTIVE CLASH, where each debater must be responsive to each other’s arguments outside of saying, “I outweigh, or you must vote for my Value or Value-Criterion!” Explain why I should, and why I shouldn’t consider your opponent’s analysis…take it one step further. I expect voters at the end of all the speeches and overviews/underview in all rebuttals. 2. Clash on the Value-and Value Criterion Debate. Tell me how and why your value criterion is hieratically better and give voters. 3. Oral presentation and rhetorical understanding. At the end of the day this is a persuasive presentation thus let it be reflected in your speeches. Moreover, I want to see that you comprehend your case constructions outside of just your shell frontline.

Contact Information

cell: 979 571-0970

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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9