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.
Jonathan Tinajero Juarez
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached:
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Hooks
Graduated high school: 2024
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I did speech and debate in high school, and I mentored underclassmen as a veteran to reach them to district success.
At Boston College, I have participated in Model UN and volunteered in hosting the event. Back home, I frequented town, county, and business district halls. I am familiar with parliamentary procedure and enjoy evaluating arguments based on evidence provided and communication.
I have volunteered with the Boston Debate League and once with the NSDA to judge 9 debate rounds in 2025 to 2026. I have only judged CX so far, yet I am available to judge any event if assigned to it. (The BDL is only CX.)
I competed in 3A CX Debate, reaching the state tournament and making elim rounds with Damian Vazquez twice.
I competed in 3A Congressional Debate, reaching the state tournament once.
I competed in #A Informative Extemp.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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 prefer to hear a debate over policy outcomes. I prefer to judge based around how the evidence is argued in round, unless if I find the evidence glaringly contradicts the verbal argumentation. I like to see counterplans, just as long as they are competitive and the oppostitions cannot prove they can coexist with the plan. I like disads, as long all parts are either cohesive, or the oppostition cannot prove they aren't. I like kritiks, just as long as the neg can propose a substantive alternative that competitively solves the advantages of the affirmative, or the affirmative cannot refute the solvency.
LD
Approach: Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills
Philosophy:
I am not as familiar with Lincoln Douglas. As such, my preferences for Kritik debate apply to Lincoln Douglas.
Contact Information
email: juareztinajeroj@gmail.com
cell:
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
CX State
State Meet
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
Extemp
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
6
I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6
