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.

John Dikeman

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Needville HS

Graduated high school: 2016

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I competed in policy debate for four years in highschool. My junior year I was 3rd place in 4a UIL State, and received the 2nd place speaker award. My senior year I advanced to quarterfinals.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
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 identify as tab, but I’m going to default to policymaker if no other framework is introduced. I’m fine with speed, as long as your tags & anything else you want verbatim on my flow (ie theory stuff) is clear. If I think you’re going too fast, I’ll say clear. T- I’m all about a good T debate. My own preferences and opinions tend to have an influence in my judging of a lot of theory stuff, so I’ll try to disclose them as well as I can. I think that competing interpretations > reasonability. This is not to say that I will absolutely never pref aff on T because I think it’s reasonable- you’re just going to have a harder time convincing me if the neg puts up any sort of fight in that regard. I also don’t think that framer’s intent is a persuasive standard. DA- run your disad. K- I also love a good kritik. I’m pretty well-read and can probably handle whatever you throw at me, but if it’s /very/ out of the mainstream and something that’s harder to understand, you probably shouldn’t assume that I know exactly what’s going on and devote some time in the block to really explaining it. CP- I’ll vote on a CP, but I probably won’t enjoy it. Condo- I’m not a huge fan of multiple conditional advocacies. I will never intervene, but I find affirmative theory arguments to that end to be very persuasive. I will also err towards rejecting the team, not the argument, in a properly impacted theory shell.


Rounds judged: 0

Contact Information

cell: 713 5026682

Availability Information

Meet types:
CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1