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.

Michael Mitchell

Current high school:
Texas Tech University

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 4-6

High school attended:

Graduated high school: 2002

Participated in high school: no

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I've been debating for 4 years. Been to 2 policy debate camps, judged at TFA state, judged at tournaments all over Texas this year, qualified for the NPTE 3 times, finished at octafinals and double octafinals at nationals, and judge UIL region at Texas Tech every year. I just don't happen to be in that area this year. Looking at judging in the DFW area or in Waco.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 10
Judging approach: policy maker
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: I like everything from CP/DA to T to performance, K, etc. Up until this year I had only debated the k, and the majority of this year I debated CP/DA. I'm up on debate theory, critical theory, etc. Although I do not think communication skills are completely necessary, I do think that clarity is essential for me to evaluate the evidence read. Just try not to mumble because I hate having to ask for cards and reread them at the end because I just flat out did not understand anything beyond the tag line. You should have a counter-interpretation and a we meet on every procedural. I also think it's cool when teams K fairness or otherwise impact turn procedurals. I do not evaluate RVIs. I'm down with the framework debate, and buy both fiat good and fiat bad args. If you are going to read a nuke war card that doesn't say extinction in it you might want to a read a nuke war leads to extinction card. Time frame is oftentimes more important than magnitude, especially if there are inevitability claims in the round.


Rounds judged: 10
Approach: Issues
I evaluate LD through the net-beneficiality of the winning criteria. If you win your criteria but are not net-beneficial, then you will still lose the round. If someone's case is weak, I don't feel the neg has to have their own case. They can just run any arguments they want to negate the affirmative by explaining how they fail to win under their criteria. If the criteria isn't explained well I default to my own paradigm of net-benefits based on time frame, magnitude, and risk.

Contact Information


Availability Information

Meet types:

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 2 Dallas/Fort Worth

I will travel to: