Skip to main content
Image of UT logo that reads The 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.

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

Rounds judged: 10
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

Rounds judged: 5
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