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 speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.

Abiel Cantu

Current high school:
Roma

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Roma High School

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
My first competitive speech and debate event was extemporaneous speaking, which I continued to participate in numerous invitationals both UIL and TFA. All the while I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate from freshmen year all the way through my junior year in high school. I also attended the UTNIF debate camp for Lincoln-Douglas. I participated in Cross-Examination debate (CX) my senior year where I had my most fruitful season qualifying for TFA State and taking top two in many local tournaments.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged:
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: I like clever T's however that doesn't mean I'll vote on it automatically if you manage to do something fancy or of sorts. I am ok with multiple T shells but keep in mind I consider T a timewhore so please don't make me penalize you. DA's are ok, as long as the link is buyable and the impact is stressed enough. (Same applies for PTX DA's although I hold real-world impacts on a higher pedestal) CP: are ok too Theory: I really like a good theory debate. Although I like my theory portions of the round to be slower that way I can evaluate effectively. K: I am ok with K's but I prefer the team presenting the argument to be very clear on my role. I also hold the quality of the evidence in the K to a higher standard with that said don't be surprised if I ask for evidence. (bad evidence will be punished) A good affirmative team should be able to handle any K with poise and never lose perceptual dominance, or compensate communication with speed. (If I don't catch the argument don't expect me to vote on it) Also a good Aff team should be able to engage the K at it's own level and never rely to much on framework (although it is crucial) and no link or turns.

LD

Rounds judged:
Approach: Issues
Philosophy:
Framework is very crucial in deciding how I vote, unless I'm convinced otherwise. Be warned, however, ignoring contention level arguments, spikes, or good on-case theory will not guarantee a win even if framework is solid. In progressive debates I hold Framework to be of greater importance especially towards the end of the debate when crystallization and off-case arguments (T,K,CP,DA or ect) are narrowed down and used to persuade me how to vote. If a debater is able to use framework to turn or prove an off-case argument null, they shall be rewarded handsomely (Same applies to debaters who quote StarWars, and How I met Your Mother) I really enjoy progressive L-D but keep in mind I have an affirmative bias once off-case arguments are introduced. In the event the affirmative is one to bring up an off-case argument or their 1AC is not traditional my bias will be reduced.

Contact Information

email: abielcantu15@gmail.com
cell: 956 8444695
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District

Qualified for:
Extemp
CX
LD

Travel

Region of residence:
Area 4 Rio Grande Valley

I will travel to: 4