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.
Al-Eyah Jabbar
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 7
High school attended:
Spring Early College Academy
Graduated high school: 2022
Participated in high school: No
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I've been judging at various schools for diffrent districts and organizations such as UIL, HISD, FBISD, CASE, etc. I was involved in varsity debate in high-school for two years and went on to win a Speaker award. I've been a judge for over a year now and I want to expand my experience.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 2
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: 1. **Clarity and Conciseness:** I aim to provide clear and concise responses to user queries. This involves avoiding unnecessary jargon and ensuring that my answers are easy to understand. 2. **Relevance:** I prioritize offering relevant information and addressing the user's specific questions or concerns. This ensures that the conversation remains on track and helpful. 3. **Accuracy:** I strive to provide accurate information to the best of my knowledge. If I'm uncertain about a topic, I'll either acknowledge my limitations or offer general guidance to help users further. 4. **Engagement:** I aim to maintain an engaging and conversational tone throughout the interaction. This includes asking follow-up questions when appropriate and being attentive to the user's needs. 5. **Respect and Courtesy:** I'm committed to maintaining a respectful and courteous tone in all interactions. I avoid offensive language and maintain a neutral and unbiased stance. 6. **Adaptability:** I adjust my responses to cater to the user's preferences. If a user desires a formal or informal tone, I adapt accordingly. 7. **Privacy and Ethics:** I uphold privacy and ethical standards by not requesting or sharing personal information and not engaging in harmful or unethical discussions. 8. **Helpfulness:** Ultimately, my goal is to provide valuable assistance and information to users, whether it's answering questions, offering explanations, or assisting with tasks.
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: 1. **Clarity and Conciseness:** I aim to provide clear and concise responses to user queries. This involves avoiding unnecessary jargon and ensuring that my answers are easy to understand. 2. **Relevance:** I prioritize offering relevant information and addressing the user's specific questions or concerns. This ensures that the conversation remains on track and helpful. 3. **Accuracy:** I strive to provide accurate information to the best of my knowledge. If I'm uncertain about a topic, I'll either acknowledge my limitations or offer general guidance to help users further. 4. **Engagement:** I aim to maintain an engaging and conversational tone throughout the interaction. This includes asking follow-up questions when appropriate and being attentive to the user's needs. 5. **Respect and Courtesy:** I'm committed to maintaining a respectful and courteous tone in all interactions. I avoid offensive language and maintain a neutral and unbiased stance. 6. **Adaptability:** I adjust my responses to cater to the user's preferences. If a user desires a formal or informal tone, I adapt accordingly. 7. **Privacy and Ethics:** I uphold privacy and ethical standards by not requesting or sharing personal information and not engaging in harmful or unethical discussions. 8. **Helpfulness:** Ultimately, my goal is to provide valuable assistance and information to users, whether it's answering questions, offering explanations, or assisting with tasks.
LD
Rounds judged: 3
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
1. **Value and Criterion:** I carefully evaluate the value and criterion presented by each debater. I look for a clear and logically sound framework that guides their arguments. 2. **Clarity and Organization:** I value clear and well-organized arguments. Debaters should structure their cases logically and communicate their points effectively. 3. **Evidence and Analysis:** I assess the quality of evidence and the depth of analysis presented. Strong arguments are supported by relevant and credible sources, and debaters should provide thoughtful analysis of this evidence. 4. **Rebuttal and Clash:** I pay attention to how debaters engage with their opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttals involve identifying weaknesses in the opponent's case and addressing them directly. 5. **Persuasiveness:** I consider how persuasive and compelling each debater's case is. This includes the ability to articulate their points convincingly and respond to counterarguments effectively. 6. **Ethics and Respect:** I expect debaters to engage in the debate with respect and adhere to ethical standards. This includes avoiding ad hominem attacks and maintaining a respectful tone. 7. **Logic and Reasoning:** Logical consistency and sound reasoning are crucial. I evaluate the coherence of the arguments and the strength of the logical connections within the debate. 8. **Clash of Values:** In LD debates, I assess the clash of values and the debaters' ability to demonstrate the superiority of their value and criterion in achieving the resolution's objective. 9. **Adaptability:** I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies to respond to the specific arguments and contentions presented in the round. 10. **Decision Criteria:** Ultimately, my decision is based on who presents the most compelling case and successfully upholds their value and criterion in light of the resolution. My goal is to provide a fair and impartial evaluation of the debate, considering these factors, to determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and presentation.
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
1. **Value and Criterion:** I carefully evaluate the value and criterion presented by each debater. I look for a clear and logically sound framework that guides their arguments. 2. **Clarity and Organization:** I value clear and well-organized arguments. Debaters should structure their cases logically and communicate their points effectively. 3. **Evidence and Analysis:** I assess the quality of evidence and the depth of analysis presented. Strong arguments are supported by relevant and credible sources, and debaters should provide thoughtful analysis of this evidence. 4. **Rebuttal and Clash:** I pay attention to how debaters engage with their opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttals involve identifying weaknesses in the opponent's case and addressing them directly. 5. **Persuasiveness:** I consider how persuasive and compelling each debater's case is. This includes the ability to articulate their points convincingly and respond to counterarguments effectively. 6. **Ethics and Respect:** I expect debaters to engage in the debate with respect and adhere to ethical standards. This includes avoiding ad hominem attacks and maintaining a respectful tone. 7. **Logic and Reasoning:** Logical consistency and sound reasoning are crucial. I evaluate the coherence of the arguments and the strength of the logical connections within the debate. 8. **Clash of Values:** In LD debates, I assess the clash of values and the debaters' ability to demonstrate the superiority of their value and criterion in achieving the resolution's objective. 9. **Adaptability:** I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies to respond to the specific arguments and contentions presented in the round. 10. **Decision Criteria:** Ultimately, my decision is based on who presents the most compelling case and successfully upholds their value and criterion in light of the resolution. My goal is to provide a fair and impartial evaluation of the debate, considering these factors, to determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and presentation.
Contact Information
email: Aljabbar.scholarly@gmail.com
cell: 346 3503376
office:
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:
3
I will travel to: 3
