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.
Marcos Leyva
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 2
High school attended:
Earl Warren High School
Graduated high school: 2026
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I debated in high school for 2 years. The first year was dedicated to Congress and extemp, with success in both events. The second year was dedicated to Public Forum debate (TFA State qualifier and NSDA Nats qualifier), extemp, and LD. For all events, I've spent an excessive amount of time coaching upcoming debaters (as debate captain) and judging multiple mock rounds (LD, CX, PF, INFO, and EXTEMP). Furthermore, I've been learning more in-depth about CX debate as I've been getting coached at the University of Texas at Austin.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Stock Issues
Policy priority: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: I love a clean, substantive debate. I default to tech, but you need to do the work on impact framing (magnitude, timeframe, probability, reversibility, etc). Comparative weighing wins ballots: tell me why your impact matters more under my ballot and how it interacts with theirs. Collapse smartly and give a clear path to the ballot. If the round devolves into card-dumping without weighing, I’m forced to decide what matters, and you won’t like that outcome. I’m good with CP/DA strategy and love clean policy substance. CPs need real solvency and a clear net benefit, and DAs need specific links and solid internal link work. Tricks are a much harder sell aka I’m not voting on cheap spikes or gimmicks unless they’re clearly warranted and explained with real impact. *When extending, don't just say, "Please extend Wagner 23." Instead, say what exactly am I extending. For example, say, "Please extend Wagener 23, which shows xyz." On the Aff: I will vote on the plan that wins on all stock issues. However, don't let that be an excuse to be all defensive when the neg has clear and strong off-case arguments. If the neg can prove to me that off-case outweighs the plan, even if the plan wins on all stock issues, I will be forced to vote the neg.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
In any debate, I will default to whichever value is standing strongest. If values are the same, my priority will shift to the criterion. All in all, the negations should all be refutations of the affirmation. Unlike CX, this isn't an event where you can traditionally run counter-plans or excessive off-case arguments.
Contact Information
email: marcos.o.leyva@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
District
Regional
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1
