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.

Robert Ehrlich

Current high school:
Lamar University

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Orangefield High School, Orangefield, Texas

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
I competed at the district 21-3A CX debate competition all four years of high school and placed in the top 4 teams every time. Twice I placed 2nd and advanced to state and the second time I advanced to state, I broke to the second day. I also qualified for and competed in the TFA state CX tournament my Junior year. I competed in the district persuasive speaking competition three times and advanced to finals all three times. I prefer to judge CX but feel capable and am willing to judge extemp if I'm needed. I don't have much experience in LD debate, however, I feel that I have a strong enough understanding of debate itself from my CX experience and am willing to judge LD if I am needed. It's unlikely that I'm very highly qualified to judge Prose/Poetry. I never did it in high school, nor do I really understand the common conventions judges use to evaluate these kind of interpretive speakers. However, I am willing to do some research and learn if I'm needed in such rounds.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Issues
Evidence philosophy: equal
Paradigm: I believe in voting on whatever the debaters in the round convince me are the issues. I believe strongly in topicality arguments where they are appropriate (which is more often than not), and I believe that theory is an important (and sometimes even exciting) foundation for checking fairness and understanding of key concepts in any debate and am willing to vote on either if the debaters spend enough time on them and make a good enough case for why I should. However, I also believe in defaulting to a rigid interpretation of my understanding of the elementary definitions of affirmative and negative unless the debaters give me good reason not to. (As in, in order to win, the affirmative must substantiate a perspective which advocates a change in the status-quo and proves the action of their case to be a good idea, while the negative, if the affirmative can do that, must prove that the action the affirmative advocates is not a good idea.) I do value fairness a bit above topical education, but only as a means of achieving topical education. So in other words, I like and prefer a debate that is topic intensive, but I will not reward a team for ignoring issues of fairness and competitive equity extant in the round in favor of providing "better topical education." When I say "Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills," that means I believe speaking skills almost never factor in to who wins or loses because the issues are normally much more important and telling. However, I do expect clear, professional, and respectful speaking and behavior. Especially important is the word CLEAR. The issues are important, but they only matter if I can understand what you say they are. Deficiencies in any of these three categories will certainly be reflected in your speaker points, but in more extreme cases, they can affect my decision. Obviously, impact calculus/analysis is a must. I want to know what you are extending and why you think it is important in the round so I can VOTE FOR YOU. Last but not least, I expect debaters to EXTEND THEIR ARGUMENTS THROUGH THE ROUND. An argument that is won but not extended will rarely influence my decision.


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Equal
My LD philosophy is that LD debate is as much an argument chess match as it is a speaking competition. I will vote for the debater who displays sound logic, an understanding of what he/she is talking about, and superior speaking skills. I appreciate debaters who address every issue, in order, down the flow, but also respect creativity and wit in answering and comparing arguments, contentions, and cases. I do not, however, appreciate being misled. If the other debater didn't actually drop a contention, don't tell me they dropped that contention or you will lose speaker points and, depending on what issue it is, the round. I want to hear a competitive, honest, and topic intensive debate.

Contact Information

cell: 409 7796613

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 3 Houston/Beaumont

I will travel to: 3 5