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.

Kaitlin Hairston

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 7

High school attended:
Llano HS

Graduated high school: 2012

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I participated in policy debate and extemporaneous speaking for four years while in high school on the UIL, NFL, and TFA circuits. I went to UIL CX State twice, breaking to octofinals both times. I was alternate to nationals in NFL International Extemp. I have judged regularly since I have graduated, primarily around the Austin area, and have consulted with speech teams. I currently work as a student assistant for UIL Speech and Debate.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 15
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: Although I will accept/vote on any issue if given in-round analysis as to why I should, I default strongly to a Policy Maker framework. I can be persuaded to weigh T on reasonability or competing interpretations, but all other flows are generally competing interp. DAs should have case-specific link stories and tangible impacts, and CPs must have both plan text and net benefits to be votable. I will not vote on a framework, T, or theory argument if it does not have standards and voters. I will accept both pre and post ballot alternatives for Ks, but they should be specified as either one or the other. A clean flow and good analysis/impact calculus goes a long way with me. Abuse arguments and moral obligations are legitimate voting issues, though they should be upheld throughout the debate (i.e. do not run a spreading violation and then gasp through the 1AR). I enjoy kritical ideology when run correctly. I prefer line-by-lines on case debates, with real world impacts as the pivot point. My primary focus on the negative is offensive arguments. You cannot win my ballot with only defense on the flow. Debate should be a polite, professional environment-- anything else will cost you speaker points. While I can flow speed and understand its merits, any UIL round should focus on the quality of evidence and speaking.


Rounds judged: 30
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
I believe LD debate has lost its focus on Value/Criterion debate. While that is my favorite portion, I tend to judge based on analysis (as in evidence synthesis) and voters (as presented by the debaters). Definition debates are generally pointless and often become muddled on both sides. Keep a clean flow. I do not vote on defense only. Both sides need offense and control of the preferable value/criterion to win the round. That being said, simply stating the the Aff/Neg framework is preferable is not an argument. I am open to off-case arguments in addition to your personal case, though it should not hinder the efficiency of your argumentation. Extension of case is important, but the final speeches should collapse the debate into primary voting issues for me to weigh. I weigh drops only when they are directly pointed out by the opposing team. Be polite and professional.

Contact Information

cell: 512 5255825

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 8