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.

Jace Archer

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Timpson High School

Graduated high school: 2014

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I have been competing in CX debate for the past 4 years. During this time I fully involved myself in competition, spending hours filing evidence, writing cases, and continually learning so that I could improve my skills. I also helped train and prepare the other debate teams at my school. While debating I participated in dozens of different invitational debates all over the state. At district I was the State Alternate 2 years in a row, one of those I was called on to actually compete. I also finished second last year. I also was awarded the highest speaker points award.I qualified for the State CX competition last year where my partner and I finished in the top ten teams. In my senior year I also placed first in my District UIL Student Congress competition, and then went one to place third at the state level. Outside of school I also participated in a Demo CX Debate at the UIL's Student Activities Conference in Corpus Christi.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: As a Policy Maker I will vote for the case that presents the best "world" to me. This means that I want the Affirmative to tell me how great the results of their plan will make the world, and I want the Negative to not only say the AFF's world won't happen, but also that if the plan is enacted it will cause major consequences for the world. I DO consider stock issues to be important, and I will vote on them. However just because the NEG wins topicality does not necessarily mean they will win the debate. I will listen to most arguments, as long as they are ran properly and are proven to be relevant to the round. For the rebuttals I would like to hear both teams give an impact calculus and go over the stock issues they won. I WILL NOT LISTEN TO SPEADING/SPREADING! Not only does it go against UIL rules, but also makes rounds un-educational for both sides. I would like clear signposting and roadmaps. I understand debates can be passionate, but don't be overly rude or confrontational. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues

Contact Information

cell: 936 2083025

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6