Skip to main content
Image of UT logo that reads The 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 speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.

Miguel Cruz

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference: N/A

Number of years coached: N/A

Number of tournaments judged: 2

High school attended:
United South High School

Graduated high school: 2011

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I've competed in both LD Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking-Informative/Persuasive during my Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years of high school. I've judged District meets for Three Rivers High School twice in a row 2018/2019. I understand value debate, spreading, flowing, and other techniques that qualify me to give feedback to up-and-coming debaters. I am also experienced in Extemporaneous Speaking, and maneuvers such as signposting. I believe I can provide valuable feedback for speakers that compete in both events. Lastly, I currently work in a field that is writing intensive, and can provide feedback in case writing and argument formation.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 0
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: To be completely transparent, I have little to no experience in CX debate. My familiarity comes from watching former debaters practice their cases with each other in my former high school. I feel the more practical the evidence is, the more strength the case has.

LD

Rounds judged: 4
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I am strictly a value/criterion heavy judge, meaning I find those two portions of a case to be of upmost importance. Contentions should only further support the criterion and value, and definitions should be presented only to provide perspective of the resolution. I believe there should be good clash between cases, and whoever can prove their values to be of higher importance in the most practical way, should win the debate.

Contact Information

email: miguel.a.cruz05@gmail.com
cell: 512 8176063
office: 512 5177188

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional State Meet

Qualified for:
LD
Extemp

Travel

Region of residence:
1

I will travel to: 1 4 5 8