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.

Samuel Cook

Current high school:
Lindale

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached: 2

Number of tournaments judged: 6

High school attended:
Whitehouse High School

Graduated high school: 2013

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I participated in LD in high school and was relatively competitive before moving into policy. I competed in policy for two years. I was a quarterfinalist at UIL State in policy my senior year and reached the Top 32 at NFL Nationals. I was a semifinalist in Persuasive Extemp at UIL. I triple-qualified at NFL Qualifiers in policy, extemp and congress. I currently participate in college parli [NPDA/NPTE] and was ranked in the top 15 last year by the NPTE Board and won seventh speaker at the NPDA National Tournament. I've also been hired by multiple schools to coach debate teams, both by schools and private individuals.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 15
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I don't have any preconceived notions about how a debate round should operate. Don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, disabling, or use any other form of pejoratives. You will most definitely lose speaker points, at least, and I could be easily swayed by a criticism of that language which says that you should lose. Ask me specific questions if you are worried I won't like a specific argument. Specific things that will help you in a debate if you don't want to ask questions - Theory: I like the theory debate fine. Absent a winning reasonability claim, I default to an offense/defense paradigm of competing interpretations. I don't have any qualms on voting for potential abuse if I'm told to do so, nor do I have any problem rejecting it if there's a compelling reason why I should do so. I am not inclined to naturally believe that conditionality is bad for debate, which means I am fine with people reading conditional strategies but will still vote for condo bad if there's a theoretical objection to that strategy/orientation that is won within a competing interps framework. This also applies to T debates. DA/CP: Not much to say here, I love DA/CP debate. The more specific and in-depth your DA/CP explanation is, the more likely I am to vote for you. I love tricky strategies and generally think of this kind of debate as an intellectual/theoretical chess match. Permutations are generally a must and in-depth perm debates are incredibly fun to judge, especially when they're well-researched. K: I love the K debate. I am generally the one reading critical strategies on my college team and am relatively well-read in critical theory. However, I do not insert my own understandings of critical theory into debates, so if you do not understand a critical position, don't waste your time reading it. Speed: I love it, it's fine. However, if you use speed to exclude another team that is perhaps younger or more inexperienced, your speaker points will suffer and I will be generally annoyed. Also, if you cannot spread and be clear, don't do it. I understand all parts of the utility of spreading to be able to make more arguments, but if you're incapable of making a lot of arguments and good arguments at the same time, you would be better served by making fewer arguments that make sense.

LD

Rounds judged: 5
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I don't have any preconceived notions about how the round should go, so just do what you want. Ask specific questions before the round. I'm cool with non-traditional style arguments. I have voted for plan texts in LD, K's in LD and would be willing to vote for T or Counter-plans if they are made relevant.

Contact Information

email: rigdoncook@gmail.com
cell: 903 7808772
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp

Travel

Region of residence:
5

I will travel to: 2 3 5 6