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.

neeraja koneru

Current high school:
University of Texas at Austin

Currently coaching?: yes

Conference: 5A

Number of years coached: 2

Number of tournaments judged: 7-10

High school attended:
Westwood HS in Austin, TX

Graduated high school: 2009

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
I debated for four years in high school at Westwood HS (including an octofinals appearance at the UIL 5A state meet in 2009) and am currently in my fourth year of collegiate debate at UT. I judged the 1-3a meets last year and coach a team locally so I am very familiar with the UIL format of debate and with the high school debate topic.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 40
Judging approach: policy maker
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: DEBATE BACKGROUND: - 8 years debating experience (4 @ Westwood HS in Austin, 4th year debating at the University of Texas) - coach SFA HS so I’m knowledgeable about the topic - judged apprx 30-40 debates on the topic I believe debate is a game and will not make a good judge for teams wanting to further a political or personal movement in the round. I would prefer to watch debates where the affirmative defends a plan grounded in the resolution. “defaults” easily persuaded otherwise-- TOPICALITY: Not a huge fan of T as a generic strategy but I do think it’s great when teams read specifically tailored violations. Comparative impact calculus about the standards is important—make arguments about how your standards capture theirs (limits k2 education etc). I think debate is a game so will likely default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Should reasonability become a part of the debate, affs have to win a link to “reasonability good” args—ie: WHY is the aff reasonable--- not just reasons why reasonability as a practice in the abstract is good COUNTERPLANS: SLOW DOWN ON COUNTERPLAN TEXTS!!! competition theory largely up for debate—I err on the side of consult and conditions/ similarly competitive CPs are questionably competitive. Quantify solvency deficits—if CP only solves X amount what does that mean in terms of the impact. Offense Defense good/bad is a useful debate to have when debating CPs that probably solve the entire case DISADS: Impact calc is a must and turns case arguments are persuasive. Zero risk of a DA is a thing—I think it is negative burden to prove the disad is true and not the aff’s burden to have evidence against a poorly constructed argument. Smart analytic> bad evidence I will not read all of your evidence for you at the end of a debate. It’s your job to explain it in the debate KRITIKS: Not very familiar with the literature so don’t get caught up in high theory/ jargon. Case specific impacts and alternative solvency args (ie root cause) are persuasive. THEORY: PEN TIME IS KEY impacts are important. I often find reject the argument to be a persuasive argument. Conditionality becomes more persuasive when there are multiple conditional worlds—especially if there are inconsistencies PAPERLESS: if prep stealing becomes excessive I will start to use prep to jump speeches. Have a copy of your speech on your partner’s computer while giving your speech.

LD

Rounds judged:
Approach:
Philosophy:

Contact Information

email: neeee.raja@gmail.com
cell:
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
CX State

Qualified for:
CX

Travel

Region of residence:
Area 1 Austin/San Antonio

I will travel to: 1