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.
Sarah Rickert
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Wimberley
Graduated high school: 2021
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
Here's how you could incorporate that into your personal judge philosophy:
---
**Judge Philosophy:**
Having participated in debate throughout high school, I understand firsthand the importance of clear, logical arguments and effective communication. I value debaters who can construct well-reasoned cases, present their points persuasively, and engage with their opponents' arguments critically. I appreciate when debaters not only follow the rules of the format but also bring creativity and depth to their analysis.
Given my aspiration to attend law school after college, I have a particular interest in arguments that are grounded in solid reasoning and evidence. I am attentive to the structure of arguments, the relevance of the evidence provided, and the debaters' ability to address counterpoints effectively. While I appreciate a strong rhetorical style, I prioritize substance over style—what matters most to me is the strength and clarity of the arguments presented.
I strive to maintain an unbiased perspective and will evaluate each argument on its merits, focusing on logical consistency, adherence to the debate format, and the overall effectiveness of the debaters' strategies. My goal is to ensure a fair and rigorous evaluation, helping debaters grow in their skills and confidence.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Stock Issues
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: I place significant emphasis on the framework and topicality in a debate, as a well-defined framework grounds the discussion and provides clarity on what should be evaluated. I appreciate debaters who establish a strong framework early on and clearly demonstrate how their arguments fit within that structure. When it comes to topicality, I value well-developed and articulated arguments, and while I’m open to creative interpretations of the resolution, these must be logically justified and strategically defended. Strong evidence and credible sources are crucial, and I expect debaters to not only present well-researched evidence but also to contextualize it within their broader case. Logical consistency is paramount—your arguments should follow a clear line of reasoning, and I’m particularly persuaded by those who can identify and exploit logical flaws in their opponents' cases. Cross-examination is a critical part of the debate, and I look for debaters who use this time strategically to clarify points, expose weaknesses, and set up their next arguments. While content is key, style and delivery also matter; clear, concise, and persuasive communication can enhance the impact of your arguments, and respect for your opponents is essential. Effective weighing of impacts is crucial in close rounds, and I appreciate when debaters compare the significance, probability, and timeframe of impacts, making it clear why their impacts should take precedence. I’m open to theory arguments and kritiks, but they need to be well-developed, relevant, and clearly explained, with justified reasons for why they should be prioritized in the round. Ultimately, my decision will be based on the flow, so clear signposting and structured argumentation are essential in guiding me toward your desired outcome.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
My LD judging philosophy centers on clarity, logical consistency, and strong value debate. I appreciate debaters who clearly define and uphold their value and criterion, as these guide the round and ground the arguments. I value well-reasoned and logically sound arguments that directly engage with the resolution and the opposing side's case. Effective weighing and impact analysis are crucial, especially in close rounds, as they help me understand why your arguments should take precedence. While I respect a variety of argument styles, I prioritize substance over speed, and clear, persuasive communication is key to winning my ballot.
Contact Information
email: sarahlouiserickert@gmail.com
cell: 512 9388514
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:
1
I will travel to: 1 5 8
