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.

Austin Alonzo

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Lubbock-Cooper High School

Graduated high school: 2014

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
CX Debate- I know I am qualified to judge for a CX Debate tournament because I was able to compete in tournaments for the past four years. I was able to get 1st place at district during my sophomore and senior year, and I was able to make it to state. I have also spent my high school years dedicate to research each of the years debate topics. I know I can provide service to the future generation of debaters. I want to help them better their speaking abilities, so they can be prepared for the life after high school. Extemp- I competed in both persuasive and informative Extemp for all four year, and I was able to go to many tournaments. I also help run the State tournament for this past year as the speech crew. I was able to get a great understanding for the process. Prose/ Poetry- During my four years of competing, I was able to get an overall understanding of both prose and poetry. I spent my time understanding both categories for each of the interps. I was able to help run the rounds at State last year for poetry, so I have an excellent understanding of what is to be expected from a judge.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: I would be considered a Stock Issues Judge because I believe there is a correct way to structure a case. I am very big on topicality, so I expect to see a structured and formulated argument. Each of the stock issues depends on each other because each one is supportive of the next. I prefer that if the Negative runs a counter plan, they should be able to properly hold up the argument as well as bringing up arguments on the Affirmative's case. I would prefer no kritiks and speed should not suffer just to fit all of the information in. I believe the Affirmative's job is to uphold the stock issues till the end. I like to have the rounds summarized at the end to help weigh the arguments against each other.

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach:
Philosophy:

Contact Information

email: ausalo78@yahoo.com
cell: 806 5357990
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
Extemp
Prose/Poetry

Travel

Region of residence:
1

I will travel to: 1 4 5 8