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.

Danielle Giffin

Current high school:
Longview Spring Hill

Currently coaching?: Yes

Conference: 4A

Number of years coached: 1

Number of tournaments judged: 6

High school attended:
Longview Spring Hill

Graduated high school: 2016

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: Yes

Judging qualifications:
I've participated in Speech and Debate for the last five years, four at the high school level and one at the college level. During my time in High School, I advanced to the State level twice; once my junior year and once my senior year. At those competitions I placed in the Octofinals both years. In college, I've been lucky enough to debate British Parliamentary debate as well as some APDA debate. I've also both Judged and Coached many policy debates in my time. During my time at the University of Denver, I've been fortunate enough to judge many APDA, Parli, and High School rounds as well as coach both my hometown team and teams in Denver.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 32
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 am a Stock Issues Judge and love creative arguments. I will vote on Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans evenly. I also understand K Theory and will vote on K, as long as you run the Kritic correctly and provided that all the tenants of the K are in order. I also allow Topical Counterplans, I think they add a unique edge to debate. Speed is fine as long as you are audible and clear with your words, once I stop understanding what you are staying I will stop flowing. I prefer depth or breath argumentation skills but If you can make all your arguments link to the Affirmative Case then I will flow them all and follow you through the round. I support new in the 2NC, I still believe that the 2NC is a constructive speech and that you are allowed to bring up new arguments. Having said that-know that if you run tons of Negative Arguments in the 2NC I will be lenient on the 1AR. On the Affirmative, Comparative Advantage cases are fine, Stock issues cases, and critical affirmative are all understandable and I love good debate on each of them. Clash is very important to me, so make sure there is good debate.


Rounds judged: 4
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
I haven't really judged LD often but I'm honestly just a tab judge in this regard.

Contact Information

cell: 903 2418188

Availability Information

Meet types:
CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1