Skip to main content
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 or 512-471-5883.

Anthony Berryhill

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached: 11

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Isidore Newman School; New Orleans, LA

Graduated high school: 2000 or before

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
I am a Ph.D. Candidate at Yale University and an alumnus of Stanford undergraduate, both focused on political theory, hence I am particularly qualified concerning the specific LD topic for UIL Spring. I am also living in South Austin, so I will be completely available to judge at the meet in UT. I am currently a Research Manager for a financial research firm, so I have no conflicts with teams that I believe are competing at UIL. I did LD for 4 years in New Orleans and while doing so, qualified for NFL, NCFL (three years) and the TOC in the event. I placed in the top 20 at TOC in LD, was 16th speaker and was the District Champion for NFL my senior year. I was also the NFL District Champion in Senate Student Congress as well, but went to NFL in LD. In extemp, I was district finalist (top 8) in U.S. Domestic and qualified for NCFL Nationals my senior year (3rd in NCFL district).

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach:
Policy priority:
Evidence philosophy:


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Equal
I view communication skills and resolution of key substantive issues as equally important, although my decisions are usually focused on the issues themselves, I weight the importance of particular points strongly based on how well delivered and articulated those are (in other words, the better explained and extrapolated a point is, the more likely I am willing to vote on it). I also weigh pragmatic and philosophical points equally but I am open to the debaters doing the work for explaining the appropriate decision making calculus. Any argument relevant to the resolution is acceptable (of course standard expectations of appropriateness apply, i.e. not being offensive, disparaging of people based on race, gender, etc.). In terms of kritiks, I am open to them if they are relevant to the resolution and evaluating its validity. However, more "progressive" arguments in some circuits inditing the wording of the resolution, whether or not justice/morality exists, "theory debates" etc. are unlikely to be persuasive. Speed: I can handle a "fast conversational" style, maximum. I believe it up to debaters to communicate at a pace, level of voice variation, etc. so that it is perfectly clear what arguments mean, how I should flow them, etc. Arguments which are difficult to understand or follow - the first time they are read -will not be evaluated (even if dropped). This applies if arguments are read too quickly to understand as well. Role of value standards: I view value standards are important filters for which arguments in the round matter. I tend to default to using value criteria for weighing the relative importance of case arguments but can be convinced otherwise if a good case is made. Role of evidence: Usually critical, but I will give well developed analytical arguments strong weight too. Probably the biggest consideration for my judging is crystallization--clear and extensive analysis of the arguments in round and in what priority I should evaluate them (and which arguments I should ignore). Debaters who "write the ballot" for me by explaining the lexical priority of arguments and addressing/accounting for the points they are losing are most likely to win my ballot.

Contact Information

cell: 512 7431633
office: 512 7431633

Availability Information

Meet types:
State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1