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 Tahmoressi

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No

Conference: TOC/TFA/uil

Number of years coached: 4

Number of tournaments judged: 1

High school attended:
Westlake High school

Graduated high school: 2008

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
i coached a team to a tfa state victory in 2010 westlake BM a team that also qualified for the TOC. i have worked at the ndt and ceda. i judge around once a year to keep my skills up

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 3
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy:
Paradigm: First and foremost I feel like its important to say that I feel like debate is up to the debaters to determine. I come into a round with no pre determined ideas what debate is and I wont impress my views on the debate. That being said I know that isn’t enough and ill put forward some ideas of what I like to hear on certain arguments Topicality: if you want me to vote negative on t in a debate round I need to know why your interp matters I like clear standards debates because thats usually where i find myself voting on t. I like discussions of education with topicality because it seems like that is the biggest impact to t. that being said I believe the fairness and predictability are good internal links to education and that you can way those standards in a way that it impacts education. Disads: i am willing to by terrible internal link stories as long as they aren’t questioned by the other team I believe its the other teams job to make no internal link arguments and if they don’t I will presume that there has to be an internal link. On discussion of impacts I as long as you win the framework question that your nuclear or extinction impacts matter I will way them. But I don’t believe that one disad can outweigh a normal affirmative unless there is case turns or case arguments or counterplan I think that timeframe and probability arguments are more important in discussion of disad impacts and that is probably where you are going to persuade me the best if it is a disad/case round or counterplan round. Counterplans: there cool I will presume negative on solvency until its contested in the 2ac. The counterplan has to have a net benefit for me to vote neg. I am pretty open to these arguments. I don’t mind listening to hard core theory debates. Ks: I run kritiks alot and understand them pretty well. I wont do work for you in questions of link. I like good link anaylsis and impact stories. If the affirmative team doesn’t question the framework that your impacts are in I will give you desired weight on the impacts. I believe you need to be making case turn arguments so your alternative can solve a policy aff how ever that should be really easy because your links should function as internal link turns. I am willing to listen to perm theory but less open to listen to no alt text bad. I love the k if you mess it up it will probably hurt you. Framework: I am pretty open either way. Policy kids your going to have to do more work for me why fairness and predictability outweigh education. I don’t like listening to generic ks like framework is exclusionary I think framework for the k should be more of a discussion of why your impacts matter as well as how political advocacy is effected by the debate. I like when people bring up framework so I can decide the round more objectivity so I wont have to do work for myself and hurt you. Being untopical is cool if your going to read give good reasons why you can be untopical.


Rounds judged:

Contact Information

cell: 512 9241829

Availability Information

Meet types:
District CX State

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 2