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.

Valarie Broderick

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Winston Churchill H.S.

Graduated high school: 2000 or before

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I was Texas State Oratorical Champion in 1988, did CCX in High School for 2 years and LD for 2 years under Lanny Naglin, the founder of LD Debate. I briefly did a stint (less than a semester) of CEDA at UT Austin, but it was so brief that I think that hardly counts. I was in the out-rounds for Impromtu speaking and Extemp for 2 years in college as well. When I came back to finish up a Communication degree, I was partnered with Michele Gomez and we went to Parli nationals in college at Texas Tech the year it was held there. I am a Ph.D student in Arts & Technology and hold 2 degrees in Communication, including a Speech emphasis for my B.A.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: stock issues
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: I hate T debates unless Aff is really shafting the Neg. I feel spreading is stupid and its more worthwhile to actually argue the topics/fallacies/importance of substantive issues than to try to impress me with how fast you can spit out words and saliva. Any team that is mean and hateful to the other team automatically looses the round and receives minimum speaker points - this is a huge issue. As Platonic reasoning explains, it is an ad hominem fallacy to attack the man, and not the argument. I always explain to the teams before the round begins that I feel this way, and I have yet to have any team by mean because I believe they take my feelings about this seriously.


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Issues
LD is about philosophy and how the arguments are explained, not about whether anything is truly resolved. What I vote on is how well points are argued, how well the speakers fulfill their objective to create a compelling and persuasive case, and not on if I even like or believe in the arguments. I feel LD is a wonderful event and I really love judging it because so often the debaters really have to struggle with concepts, and I love seeing how they respond to conflicting philosophies while still maintaining their composure.

Contact Information

cell: 2103829941 2103829941
office: 2103829941 2103829941

Availability Information

Meet types:

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 2