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.

Christian Garcia

Current high school:
Katy Taylor

Currently coaching?: Yes

Conference: 5A and 6A

Number of years coached: Less than 1

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Robert Vela High School

Graduated high school: 2016

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I was a three year LDer at Robert Vela High School and was the first in our programs history to gain a district title, break at regionals, and qualify to the Texas Forensic Association State Tournament. I was always a very progressive debater while competing in UIL and learned to take complex circuit style arguments and apply them in a very traditional manner. Likewise, my preference was always in circuit style debate and was heavily tailored towards the looks of the out-rounds of TFA and the TOC. I did policy debate once in High School to fill in for someone and it wasn't much different from the arguments I like running in LD. In other words, my understanding of Topicality, Kritiks, Plans, Counter-Plans, and Disadvantages are all there. It's up to the debaters to tell me how the round should breakdown in terms of pre or post fiat.I did extemp all three years I participated in Speech and Debate and placed a handful of times at both UIL and TFA tournaments in Extemp Speaking and both Domestic and Foreign Exemp, respectively.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I'm fine with speed. Just be clear and for all practical purposes slow down slightly at tags, cites, and all other important info for the flow. I am fine with plans, k affs, etc. The neg may read T, Ks, CPs, DAs, PICs, conditionality args, etc. I default to comparative worlds, competing interps, and all RVIs for either the aff or the neg.


Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
I view the round through an offense/defense paradigm. I don't vote on risk of offense, only on clear offense and defense, that's up to you as the debater to make clear in the round. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible as a judge, but to be 100% tab is completely impossible because there may be issues in the round that weren't clear that warrant my intervention to decide how I should be evaluating the debaters. If you want to avoid this, then please be as clear as possible and give voting issues in the final rebuttal. In essence, both the aff and the neg can read whatever arguments they want to run and as long as there is some framework written in there that gives me a weighing mechanism for the round, whether it be a standard or a role of the ballot. I default to comparative worlds and competing interps. The value debate is only important when both sides have different values which usually never happens anyways nowadays.

Contact Information

cell: 956 2836343

Availability Information

Meet types:
District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9