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.

Peter Martinez

Current high school:
Coppell

Currently coaching?: Yes

Conference: 5A

Number of years coached: 3

Number of tournaments judged: 17

High school attended:
Mercedes High School

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
CX - 7 years of experience (4 years competing, 3 coaching) Extemp - 4 years of experience competing LD - 3 years judging

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 50
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence
Paradigm: I'm fine with most arguments. I default to an offense over defense paradigm, so be aware that defensive arguments are never really round winners. Topicality - I'll vote for the team that proves they have a better interpretation of the resolution. If this is going to be a significant part of the negative strategy, spend some time here making diverse reasons I should vote for topicality. Ground arguments, clever "topical version of the aff" arguments are imperative. Disads - Impact calculus is important. tell me why this outweighs the aff and how the disad turns the aff. Counterplans - like them. Read them. Kritiks - I'm familiar with most critical theory that's been popularized in debate. This should not preclude you explaining the intricacies of the kritik, particularly how it interacts with the aff (i.e. internal-link/impact/turns the aff portions). Other things - Be respectful. Doesn'matter if you're going for a disad or a kritik, explain all parts of your argument. Side-note about a structural thing I've seen a few times at this tournament - I'm pretty lenient on new 1AR arguments that respond to brand new arguments made in the 2NC. This may surprise you, but it shouldn't. Yes it is a constructive, but it is structurally impossible to predict/preempt the infinite number of arguments that could be made in the 2NC that weren't in the 1NC.

LD

Rounds judged: 15
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I'm fine with most arguments. I default to an offense over defense paradigm, so be aware that defensive arguments are never really round winners.

Contact Information

email: peejay.mtz@gmail.com
cell: 956 3768638
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District CX State

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp

Travel

Region of residence:
2

I will travel to: 2