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.

Micheal Dickens

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference: N/A

Number of years coached: 12

Number of tournaments judged: 15

High school attended:
Rice High School

Graduated high school: 2008

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: Yes

Judging qualifications:
My Qualifications are that I have judged hundreds of invitationals including District meets, Region, and Area Meets. I coach all over the country and I am an active College and High School Level NSDA, Hired Judge, and Speechwire tournament judge. I have had many students achieve anywhere from bronze at a local level to a gold medal at nationals. As for my philosophy, I am a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team's plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative has to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win (don't just focus on Topicality). I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of the points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain. I do not like reading speeches. If it's important to you, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 4
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: As I stated earlier, I am a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team's plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative has to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue to win (don't just focus on Topicality). I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly for me to hear all of the points and must watch the rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain. I do not like reading speeches. If it's important to you, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

LD

Rounds judged: 1
Approach: Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues
Philosophy:
When it comes to LD I believe in two things above all else. 1. Burden of proof - Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove the complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. A judge should prefer quality and depth of argumentation to the mere quantity of argumentation. A judge should base the decision on which debater more effectively resolved the central questions of the resolution rather than on insignificant dropped arguments. 2. Value structure – Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure?

Contact Information

email: michaeladickens@gmail.com
cell: 430 333-0218
office: 903 875-7730

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet Congress Region Congress State

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress

Travel

Region of residence:
5

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9