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.

Phillip Knowles

Current high school:
Texas A&M University - College Station

Currently coaching?: no

Conference: Not Coaching

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 7-10

High school attended:
Van High School, Van, TX

Graduated high school: 2009

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: no

Judging qualifications:
Heavily involved in High School Speech/Debate Fall 2005-Spring 2009 at Van High School in Van, Texas. 3A CX Debate Octafinalist 2007 3A Persuasive Extemporaneous Speaking Finalist 2009 National Forensic League National Qualifier in Student Congress 2007 My debate of choice is Cross-Examination Debate; however, I worked significantly with a friend of mine in high school who did well (all levels) in LD competition. I competed in both Informative and Persuasive Extemporaneous Speaking and won numerous invitational tournaments in these events.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 25
Judging approach: stock issues
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: Coming from the Northeast Texas debate circuit, I have heavy influence in the importance of stock issues. Even after judging at TFA tournaments, this still remains true. I feel that Topicality is the number one issue of the round, followed very closely by issues on Plan Text, Inherency and Solvency. Advantages and Diadvantages are important as well, as long as they have direct connection to not only the topic at hand, but also to the affirmative case. I will listen to kritiks, counterplans and critical affirmative stances, though I would prefer not to, if they are legimately applicable to the round, have a solid warrant and claim, and are carried throughout the round.


Rounds judged: 10
Approach: Equal
Having a a stronger background in Cross-Examination debate, I tend to follow the philosophy of being a policy judge. I believe that the debate and understanding of the value and its criterion are paramount to the round. I will hear all types of argumentation, as long as the arguments have strong warrants and claims, are pertinent to the debate at hand, and are carried throughout the round.

Contact Information

cell: 903 5214056

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 3 5