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.

Arthur DeVitalis

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Penelope ISD

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
As a recent graduate of the University of Texas of Austin's Journalism program, I feel fit to judge in CX UIL workshops and competitions. My experience in communications and topical debate on live air gives me a background I feel will serve me well in this position. Besides this, I have also dealt with many client needs in my role as a producer and fundraiser, in which I have attained a high level of interpersonal communications skills. Initially, I participated in Prose and Poetry from elementary to high school as well as informative and persuasive speaking. Once in university, I took my voice to the airwaves on 91.7 FM with the round table political news show The Pale Blue Dot. I also served as the Community Programming and News Director after garnering funds as the Fundraiser Co-Director. I focused on facilitating healthy debate between hosts and guests alike, while transitioning between topics. In my position as Lead Caller at RuffaloCODY, I helped train new hires on the calling floor and fundraised simultaneously. I acquired much knowledge in approaching people and the value of their needs. In my first 7 months there, I raised over $30,000 for the University of Texas, five times the average caller’s rate of $5000 per year. I learned to approach call recipients with civility and warmth, a crucial aspect in dealing with those who may not like a judge's decision or interpretation. The years I served in student organizations like NHS and One Act Play put me in positions to give and receive dictation. I learned to communicate effectively with large groups to achieve a goal, a key part of journalism and radio. By acquiring lead roles in One Act Play three years in a row, I worked extensively with my voice and expression. In conjunction, most judges at competitions noted my voice as radio-suited, sparking my interest and eventual contribution to the field. In UIL, I mostly competed in writing and speech competitions, progressing through at least District all four years and earning awards and demonstrating my proficiency in those events. I look forward to hearing a response from you, as I feel my experience in radio, interpersonal relations, and past competitions will greatly benefit UIL and students involved. Please feel free to contact me at arthur.devitalis@gmail.com or 254-205-8494. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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: My paradigm is the standard Policy Maker Judge that slightly leans towards a Games Player. The affirmative faces either the status quo plus the disadvantages to the affirmative plan. Alternatively, a counter plan could be provided in lieu of the first option. To break it down further, I would judge individual debaters on the following criteria: Oration- Word choice and delivery of pertinent points. Veracity- The constitution of factual evidence and how it is used to supplement the argument. Resolve- Effectiveness of the status quo versus a counter plan (given the topic), as well as the overall construction of the argument. Additionally, sermonizing and effectiveness of counterpoints would factor into this paradigm.

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
Again, my paradigm would be similar to my approach to CX debate although more Games Player oriented in scoring. The affirmative faces either the status quo plus the disadvantages to the affirmative plan. Alternatively, a counter plan could be provided in lieu of the first option. To break it down further, I would judge individual debaters on the following criteria (weighed more heavily for points than my paradigm for CX debate): Oration- Word choice and delivery of pertinent points. Veracity- The constitution of factual evidence and how it is used to supplement the argument. Resolve- Effectiveness of the status quo versus a counter plan (given the topic), as well as the overall construction of the argument. Additionally, sermonizing and effectiveness of counterpoints would factor into this paradigm.

Contact Information

email: arthur.devitalis@gmail.com
cell: 254 2058494
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Prose/Poetry

Travel

Region of residence:
5

I will travel to: 1 2 3 6 8