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.
Ethan Argumaniz
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Grandview High School
Graduated high school: 2018
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I competed on the state level in both NSDA and UIL. I debated all four years of high school and have experience in many styles of debate, from super progressive to super traditional. I gave a demonstration at the UIL Superconference at UTA in 2019. I have worked with John Anderson, Robert Remington and Julian Erdmann throughout my Highschool career.
In my time following graduation, I have judged CX, PF, Congress, Extemp and LD at high levels in TFA, NSDA, NTDA and UIL.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
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'm a Tabula Rosa judge; I don't mind faster rates of speed as long as you keep your articulation clear. I won't vote off of a large quantity of arguments unless the quality of them all clearly outweigh the opposition. I'm going to vote for who is clearly winning down the flow. I am willing to vote on any type of theory as long as it is properly upheld and argued. I'll listen to any arguments. I am open to everything. Be consistent and have data to back up anything you may run.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I'm completely okay with speed. Be sure to articulate and be persuasive regardless of the speed of your speech. I understand the need to read quickly, but in the end, debate is about interaction and clashing with your opponent. If your speed affects this, the debate and your speaker points will suffer. As far as case writing, I've always loved interesting, philosophical approaches to debate topics. I firmly believe that philosophy and debate go hand in hand. More technical approaches to debate are also appreciated and interesting to see. You will not be disregarded for running stock cases. I’ll vote on what becomes a voting issue in the round or major arguments. I don’t want to intervene and guess what was important. Show me through clear argumentation what points were key and why you win them. Rebuttals and Crystallization should be given as the debater moves down the flow. Be an organized debater and it will be much easier to judge you. The use of jargon and technical language is completely fine. Evidence is necessary to back up case and arguments. Final rebuttals should at the least include voters, analysing and crystallizing the round in the rebuttals is fine too. Run whatever you want, running a K isn’t going to make me vote you down. As mentioned above, I love abstract and technical approaches. Be sure you can provide everything you need and that you aren’t just running a K to throw your opponent off. I’ll vote off a number of things (in this order): 1. Importance of Arguments Won as laid out in debate. This may include voting issues, abuse issues, topicality issues, impacts, K issues, etc. 2. Relevance of case in regards to the round/topic. (Is your case topical? Does it hold up throughout the round?) 3. Ability to argue key points (Did the debater adequately defend and attack where needed?) 4. Number of Arguments Won (This isn’t always as important. Quality always over quantity) I do my best to flow as detailed as possible and I’ll write as much on the ballot as I can.
Contact Information
email: ethanargumaniz@outlook.com
cell: 469 8153056
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Travel
Region of residence:
5
I will travel to: 1 2 4 5 6 8
