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.

Jennifer Iller

Current high school:
Texas Christian University

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Early High School Early, TX

Graduated high school: 2008

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
I have previously participated in both prose and poetry interpretation as well as extemporaneous speaking and CX debate. I have extensive experience in CX debate as I participated in it all four years of high school, attended speech camp for it, and participated at the state level for two years. At the college level I continue to be involved in communications as a journalism major. I thoroughly understand the qualities of an outstanding presentation as well as its components. Furthermore, I am interested in legal proceedings and practices. I believe this will aid me in judging CX debate in particular as the style is very similar to legal proceedings.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged:
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: As I indicated, I approach debates from a tabula rasa standpoint. I like to see both teams work the issue out and tell me why their strategy is the most advantageous without assuming that I come in with any prejudices. I judge on a combination of style and content. I believe presentation is as important as content because I need to be able to understand the idea the speaker is conveying. I like to see concise hard-hitting evidence rather than a vast amount of weak arguments. From the opposition I like to see clear refutes on each argument in which no issue is dropped without explanation. I accept speed reading as long as arguments are clear and strong and the speaker is articulate.


Rounds judged:
Approach: Equal
I like to see both sides defend and attach each other's value/criterion continuously throughout the debate. I dislike time waster arguments and dropped points. I want an explanation of why or why not I should consider each argument and why one side is superior. I value presentation and content equally while understanding time constraints. If I can't understand what the speaker is saying I'll be unlikely to consider the argument. I'll accept speed and disorganization as long as the argument is logical and speech is articulate. I am also a non-interventionist. I want to see the debaters debate without putting in my own knowledge.

Contact Information

cell: 325 642-8681

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 2 Dallas/Fort Worth

I will travel to: 1 2 8