Skip to main content
Image of white crest following text that reads The University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo spells UIL with a red star and texas shape cutout on the U
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.

Emanuel Vargas

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 8

High school attended:
New Tech High School @ B.F. Darrell

Graduated high school: 2025

Participated in high school: No

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
3 years of LD and CX at the local and national level. Currently debating for the Universiry of North Texas where I compete in NDT/CEDA as well as NFA LD at national tournaments.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 13
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: Tech > Truth (Tabula Rasa) I evaluate the flow first and will vote on conceded arguments. Technical execution matters, but I won’t default to arguments that are clearly unwarranted, unethical, or absurd if those issues are explained. I’m tabula rasa—you must tell me what matters and why. Kritiks / Policy Comfortable with both. Ks should have clear, case-specific links and explained impacts. Policy strategies (DA/CP, net benefits) are persuasive when well-explained. Clear 2NR/2AR impact framing is key. Topicality / Theory I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Procedurals need a clear impact/ballot story—calling something an “independent voter” alone is rarely sufficient. Slow down and be organized.

LD

Rounds judged: 50
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
Tech > Truth (Tabula Rasa) I evaluate the flow first and will vote on conceded arguments. Technical execution matters, but I won’t default to arguments that are clearly unwarranted, unethical, or absurd if those issues are explained. I’m tabula rasa—you must tell me what matters and why. Kritiks / Policy Comfortable with both. Ks should have clear, case-specific links and explained impacts. Policy strategies (DA/CP, net benefits) are persuasive when well-explained. Clear 2NR/2AR impact framing is key. Topicality / Theory I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Procedurals need a clear impact/ballot story—calling something an “independent voter” alone is rarely sufficient. Slow down and be organized.

Contact Information

email: Emanvargas7@gmail.com
cell: 972 9031853
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State

Qualified for:
CX
LD

Travel

Region of residence:
2

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Illustration of state of Texas with 9 color coded numbered regions.