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.

Alexander Ponce Serrano

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 1

High school attended:
Stamford High School

Graduated high school: 2025

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
CX Debate I have four years of experience competing in Cross-Examination (CX) Debate throughout high school, during which I competed at a high level in district and state competitions. I participated in numerous invitational competitions and attended the Baylor University CX Debate Camp during the summer of 2024 to further develop my debate skills and knowledge. Throughout my high school career, I was a four-time district champion and a four-time state qualifier. During my senior year in 2025, I advanced to the State Quarterfinals. These experiences have given me extensive knowledge of CX Debate, including debate strategy, argument development, research, cross-examination, and competition preparation. Extemporaneous Speaking My qualifications to judge Extemporaneous Speaking come from my years of experience competing in the event throughout high school. The type of Extemporaneous Speaking I competed in was Informative Speaking, giving me direct experience with the preparation, research, organization, and delivery required for the event. I was a two-time district champion and a four-time regional qualifier, placing 3rd at the regional competition in 2024 and 2nd in 2025. I was also a two-time state qualifier and a two-time state finalist, placing 5th at the state competition in 2024 and 6th in 2025. These experiences have given me a strong understanding of the event and the skills necessary to fairly evaluate competitors.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 3
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: When it comes to my CX Debate judging philosophy, I am very focused on stock issues. I believe the affirmative team must demonstrate that their case meets all five stock issues. If the negative team provides sufficient evidence and arguments showing that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues, I will vote negative. When it comes to Disadvantages (DAs), I believe the negative team must clearly establish uniqueness, link, and impact. If they fail to prove one of these components, I consider the disadvantage moot. I apply a similar standard to counterplans: the negative team must be able to clearly support and defend the counterplan throughout the round. If they cannot, I will allow the affirmative team to successfully challenge and defeat it. I strongly favor the basics and fundamentals of CX Debate over flashy speeches or emotional appeals. I value clear arguments, strong evidence, logical reasoning, and effective clash between the teams. I do not let emotional appeals influence my decision, and I expect both teams to provide sound and well-supported arguments. I am also not a fan of spreading or Kritiks, and I prefer teams to focus on traditional debate fundamentals that allow both sides to clearly understand and respond to the arguments being presented. I also have a strong stance against abusive or disrespectful language during debate. Debate should be a place where competitors can engage in educational and meaningful arguments while maintaining respect for one another. I understand that rounds can become intense and that competitors may become emotional, so I will be lenient when I see the first signs of inappropriate language or behavior. However, if that behavior continues throughout the round after the initial warning, I will be significantly less lenient and will take it into consideration when making my decision.

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach:
Philosophy:

Contact Information

email: alsepo24@gmail.com
cell: 325 2006438
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
Extemp

Travel

Region of residence:
8

I will travel to: 7 8

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