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.
Ivan Garcia
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 9
High school attended:
John B Alexander High School
Graduated high school: 2019
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I participated in Policy debate in high school and attended two separate debate camps including UTNIF.
I currently judge already in local high schools, I have already judges LD and CX district.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence
Paradigm: I am typically oriented around policy maker as a judge. The best negative offense for me, are a couple of DAs and a good CP. I expect the DAs to have non-generic strong links. I will mostly evaluate a DA base around the link debate. My only standards for the CPs is that they are creative and can solve for the entirety of the Affirmative case, with a net benefit. T args: I will only vote for T if it is pretty obvious that the affirmative is not topical, otherwise if they are presenting a common case then T is a time waster for me. Theory: I do not flow on theory, I think it does not take the debate anywhere. K debate: I am familiar with Ks, especially Cap, and I would be willing to vote on Ks, as long as they are well represented and are not generically linked to the affirmative case. Case: Aff just make sure your entire case is defended and upheld. Impact: A big chunk of my decision will be based on impact debate. So each side please provide an Impact Cal, and I am willing to listen to big and small stick impacts. However, I will have a higher standard for probability for big stick impacts. If you have any other questions then please just ask me before a round starts.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
For the most part I am lay, but I there are some priorities for me: Establishing framework is very important and who can most utilize their value as tool against their opponent. I want debaters to argue why the value should weigh more and/or why it can even solve for their opponents case. I have judged LD before, and I get disappointed when framework arguments fade from the center of the debate because they should be focus of LD. Impact debate is important and will ultimately decide the round. I need to know why I should not vote for the opponent and why I need to vote for your case. If there is an impact to not voting your case, let me know. Or vice versa tell me there is an impact to voting for your opponent. Impact debate can be won by using impact calculus and using the framework to tell me what why yours is more important. I will listen and vote for K debate, just make sure the argument presented has a clear link and not just an overall generic link to resolution.
Contact Information
email: ivang1129@yahoo.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1
