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.
Nika Nikoubin
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: College
Number of years coached: 1
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Talkington SYWL
Graduated high school: 2018
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I am currently the Director of Forensics for Bruins@NPDA, UCLA's student-tun NPDA debate team. I competed in college parli for two years and last year got 3rd at the National Round Robbin. I competed in CX debate and Congress in high school and made it to state for both events. I have experience judging CX, LD, Parli, Extemp, and Congress.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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: -I am a flow judge and will vote on any argument that is conceded in a round if it has: Clear framing, warrant, and impact weighing. -I think conditionality is good but will vote on Condo bad if it has won the theory debate -Feel free to read a topical aff or a Kritikal affirmative( I have experience with both and would prefer you do the style of debate that you are most comfortable in) -I will assign speaker points based on technical skills. I will lower your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent and drop you if you are racists, ableist, etc. -The theory is always fun! I am cool with the 2AC theory but will not vote on 2NR or 2AR theory. Make sure it has a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on -I do not accept shadow extensions; if you want to collapse to an argument in the 1AR/2AR, it must be in the 2AC. No new arguments in the rebuttals, please. -Make sure you have warrants and impact weighting in the rebuttals!
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
-I am a flow judge and will vote on any argument that is conceded in a round if it has: Clear framing, warrant, and impact weighing. -I think conditionality is good but will vote on Condo bad if it has won the theory debate -Feel free to read a topical aff or a Kritikal affirmative( I have experience with both and would prefer you do the style of debate that you are most comfortable in) -I will assign speaker points based on technical skills. I will lower your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent and drop you if you are racists, ableist, etc. -The theory is always fun! I am cool with the 2AC theory but will not vote on 2NR or 2AR theory. Make sure it has a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on -I do not accept shadow extensions; if you want to collapse to an argument in the 1AR/2AR, it must be in the 2AC. No new arguments in the rebuttals, please. -Make sure you have warrants and impact weighting in the rebuttals!
Contact Information
email: nikanik@g.ucla.edu
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 2 7
