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.

Jeff Coop

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached: 1

Number of tournaments judged: 0

High school attended:
Fernandina Beach High School

Graduated high school: 2000

Participated in high school: No

Participated in college: Yes

Judging qualifications:
I have formal training through the US Air Force's Airman Leadership Course (public speaking, debate, rhetoric). In addition to that introduction to this subject, throughout my course work in Political Science / Education I took part in and excelled in every opportunity put forward. My PoliSci Department chair was previously the debate coach while he was teaching at Rice University and has assisted me in my next role. During my clinical teaching year at Jarrell High School I was afforded the opportunity to coach both the UIL CX and LD debate teams which aside from being my formal introduction to this states UIL Academics program, served as a platform by which to expand my educational skill set as an educator.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: -I do not at this time feel as if I posses a definitive, or easily recognizable lens by which I analyze and decide arguments. I do focus on three points that if hit, make or break the argument. Detail, clarity, concision.


Rounds judged:
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
The first few moments set the stage, I've witnessed overconfidence crumble into trepidation and timidity transform into triumph. While the job of the judge is to of course, judge the merit of the debaters argument, the ability for a contestant to recognize their deficits, reorganize their argument, and then successfully respond while everything else is still occurring is what I look for and award accordingly. Adaptability, especially in policy debate is the most important aspect of two debaters with similar pairings. For me, both in practice and in principal, successful debate is much like a judo match. All other metaphors aside, is it the slightest of actions (or statements) that can either result in victory, or submission.

Contact Information

cell: 512 8870530
office: 254 2001780

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

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