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
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
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