Skip to main content
Image of white crest following text that reads The University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo spells UIL with a red star and texas shape cutout on the U
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.

Safiye Namver

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Clear Lake High School

Graduated high school: 2022

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I did debate for 4 years in high school from 2018-2022. I was the captain of the LD team, and later the co-president of Clear Lake High School Debate. I competed at TFA State several times, won/placed highly in many regional tournaments, and made it to octofinals at the Harvard tournament. I also competed in extemp. I have offered private public speaking coaching services to a few students in my area. I have also judged LD at 3 other tournaments.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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: Philosophy: I did LD in high school, mainly traditional with some circuit. I don't have a paradigm preference, so do what you do best. I default to offense/defense and comparing worlds unless you give me a different framework. I vote on what's extended and weighed. If an argument matters, extend the warrant, not just the tag, and tell me why it beats your opponent's. The 2NR and 2AR should write my ballot. Impact calculus (magnitude, probability, timeframe) is how you win, so please do it. I'm fine with T, CPs, DAs, theory, and Ks. Topicality needs a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters. If you're going for a K, explain the link to the specific aff and what the alt does. Don't assume I know your literature. If you spend a lot of time on framework, you need to weigh it well. I will drop you for running an identity K for a group you don't belong to. I don't vote on frivolous arguments. In the best case I won't evaluate them, and in the worst case I'll drop you. I also dislike annoying or abusive PICs, and I'm receptive to theory against them. If you're kicking an argument, say so. Conditionality is fine, but I'll listen to a good response on it. New arguments in the 2NC are okay on case. I'm less receptive to new off-case, so be ready to justify it. I want clash more than line-by-line. If it's really important that something was conceded, make it important to me. Dropping an argument doesn't automatically win you the round, so explain why it matters. Use cross-ex to set up your speeches. I'll flow what's said in CX only if you bring it up in a speech. I don't care about disclosure unless something really heinous happened, so don't waste time on it. Delivery: Spreading is fine, but if you sacrifice clarity I'll take off speaker points. Slow down on tags, authors, and analytics. If I can't understand it, it isn't on my flow. Please don't spread if your opponent is clearly inexperienced or uncomfortable with it, because I'll deduct points for that too. Keep roadmaps short (order only), and please signpost. Be respectful. Rudeness or condescension will cost you speaks. Add me to the email chain/SpeechDrop: safiyenamver@gmail.com

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I did LD in high school, mainly trad but some circuit as well. Don't have a preference. I don't vote off friv arguments. Best care scenario I don't evaluate, worst case I down you. Honestly I don't care about disclosure unless something really heinous happened, don't waste time on it. I'm good with theory/Ks. I will down you if you use an identity K for a group you don't belong to. I don't care for annoying/abusive PICs If you're going to spend a lot of time on framework, you need to weigh well. I vote off of what's weighed and extended. Spreading is fine but I take off speaker points if you sacrifice clarity. Don't spread if your opponent is clearly inexperienced/uncomfortable with it. Will also deduct points. I want to see clash and less line by line. If it's really important that a certain arg was conceded, make it important to me. Add me to the email chain: safiyenamver@gmail.com

Contact Information

email: safiyenamver@outlook.com
cell:
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: 1 2 3

Illustration of state of Texas with 9 color coded numbered regions.