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.

Tracie Jenkins

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:

Graduated high school: 2001

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I've placed in and participated extensively in each of the events that I would like to judge. I love speech and debate competitions, having excelled in a wide variety of group and solo events. I have a special passion for LD debate, because as a debater, I always appreciated judges who understood and judged by the rules. As a judge, I always flow debates and offer a fair chance to both the Affirmative and the Negative, regardless of my personal beliefs. I think that debaters should win based on merit and skill, not on my preconceptions. In 2003, I helped sponsor the TAMS Speech and Debate team which eventually joined forces with their FBLA team. Whenever I have the opportunity, I promote the benefits of speech and debate competition. I truly enjoy judging, believing that such competitions have a profound, positive impact on the minds of competitors and judges alike.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged:
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: I try to come into every round with a clean slate and let the speakers tell me what's important. So if the Aff is not giving any ground for the Neg to debate, then it is the Neg's responsibility to tell me. On the other hand, I do expect the Affirmative to uphold their burden in the round. I can definitely be swayed by well-made arguments on Topicality. That said, kritiks are good as long as you explain it and the impact links well. Disads are necessary. However, I've found that nuclear annihilation is rarely applicable. Speed is a negative when I can't understand the speaker. I do flow. I like speakers to weigh arguments for me (Impact, evidence, argument comparison). Give me voters. Rudeness is not cool at all. I expect good sportsmanship all 'round.


Rounds judged:
Approach: Equal
Both Aff and Neg have a fair chance. I flow every round. Conflict is most important to me. I believe in the Aff burden, but I'm not a fan of Neg by default, if Neg offers no conflict. I will consider definition debates, only if tied to a major conflicting argument. Also, extended arguments should have impact, if anything. No new arguments. Extend and weigh arguments. Give me voters. Please roadmap and signpost. Be polite but passionate about your argument. What may win you the round: Key Arguments Dropped arguments flow through (as long as you point it out and impact it) Superior values (if you argue it) Speaker ability

Contact Information

cell: 832 495-3107

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 3 Houston/Beaumont

I will travel to: 1 3 4