Skip to main content
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 or 512-471-5883.

Juan Guerra

Current high school:

Currently coaching?: No


Number of years coached:

Number of tournaments judged: 4

High school attended:
C.C. Winn High School

Graduated high school: 2014

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I was a Lincoln Douglas Debater for C.C. Winn High School from Fall 2011 to Spring 2014. I have advances to regional competition all 4 years that I competed, and advanced to state competition my last year as a debater. Although I have not done colligate debate, due to school reasons, I have kept up with the Debate circuit of UIL. I have judged at several invitational and district tournaments hosted by both UIL and TFA coordinators.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 4
Judging approach: Stock Issues
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: I believe that in order to be successful debater and win the round, the teams must be logical. In other words, the amount of evidence that it put out there will not trump the quality of evidence that is given. I believe it is important to also resolve the issues of the resolved accordingly. Clash is important between the two teams, but should not get out of hand. Being able to communicate properly is a huge factor when it come to achieving the issues discussed above. Because of this, I believe that being able to get your cases and arguments across to the other team in a clear and concise form is paramount to winning the round. I dislike spreading as it provides a disadvantage to the opposing team, and hinders me, as the judge to properly hear and understand the arguments presented.


Rounds judged: 8
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
I believe that in oder to be a successful LD debater, one must be reasonable and logical in terms of solving issues brought up by the resolution. Proper evidence, values, criterions, and contentions are paramount to upholding one's arguments. That being said, clash is also something I look for in an LD round. Being able to go toe-to-toe in terms of arguments with your opponent is something that is encouraged. I believe that contention clash is far more important than value/criterion clash as the substance of your case is located within the contentions. Off case arguments, and K-cases of the resolved will not be allowed or tolerated. These type of arguments provide is a disadvantage to the opponent on the receiving end of them, and place an unfair burden of the judge to as to how he/she should be voting for in the round. In terms of communication, being a clear and direct speaker is something I appreciate in a debater. In order for the round to be good, there must be clear communication of the arguments provided. That being said, spreading as a debate tactic is not allowed, as it is a disadvantage to the opponent and will not allow me, the judge to properly hear and understand the argument made by the debater.

Contact Information

cell: 830 9683829

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:

I will travel to: 1 3 4 8