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.
Benjamin Noriega
Current high school:
None
Currently coaching?: No
Conference: N/A
Number of years coached: N/A
Number of tournaments judged: 1
High school attended:
Mercedes High School
Graduated high school: 2019
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I debated for 6 years as a policy debated at Mercedes High School. I have 3 District Gold Medals and 1 Silver Medal, and have qualified and debated at UIL state 4 times. I also participated and have judged in the TFA circuit. I currently debate for the University of Texas at Austin in the NDT-CEDA circuit. I am a tab judge and will evaluate anything the debaters tell me too as it is my job to judge on the way arguments are presented and debated. The only preference that I have is that I love K debates. Other than that, all arguments are on the same ground in my philosophy. All are useful if deployed and debated correctly.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 2
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I've been debating since 7th grade and did both TFA and UIL for Mercedes High School and now debate for UT Austin. I've done CX, LD, and Extemp (Informative/Persuasive for UIL). I'm open to anything as its not my job to judge you on what you run but rather how you debate. T - I'm open for it, but I'm not necessarily the biggest fan. Don't get me wrong, I ran T. I believe that you need to have a legitimate reason that T is important and your voters and standards need to show this. In addition, don't be dumb. Do not say that neg loses ground and then run 2 offs with aff specific links. Also, I can tell if you're running a T is a legit Strat or if its a time sucker. A lot of this is why I tend to err aff on reasonability. Aff needs to prove how they either meet neg's Interp or that the aff's Interp is significantly better for debate or how reasonability is the better way to vote. DAs - Good tools. Generic DAs are harder to win for me. Your link's need to be specific to the aff and clearly show an internal link chain to the impacts. I really want to know the specifics of how the aff leads to the DAs impacts and why DA turns case. Also uniqueness is a big thing for me. Cps - I think Cps need to generate major competition for the aff and prove how they solve better. A lot of the times, debaters don't stress that the CP (if proven by the neg) can solve 100% of the aff, and that's usually where the aff will get in with solvency args. In addition, you need to have a clear net benefit. By net benefit I mean a full on DA. Don't just say in your CP shell that you don't link to a DA or read one card that says you solve one. You need to read a whole DA against the aff that the CP doesn't link to and/or solves. Impact analysis is important because it allows me to see the what argument actually wins on impact cal and solvency when it comes to its impacts. Ks (AFF and NEG) - Huge fan of Ks, ran a lot in high school. I have pretty generic understandings of most Ks, but don't assume I know your lit base. I AM THE BIGGEST CAP DEBATER. I have been running it for 6 years now and I know how its supposed to function. There are a lot of mistakes that debaters make when running cap and Ks in general which hurts the application of the K in round. You need to prove the exact link to the aff (for neg) and why the instance of the affirmative allows for the extrapolation of the impacts of the K. Your alternative needs to solve the aff, but does not necessarily be the most practical. This means that aff arguments that try and say that you need an alternative system for cap or that the alternative is abstract are harder to win because I believe that the nature of Ks and the societal changes they are trying to foster need methods that don't always seem like the most practical. For Aff, your K Aff needs to show clearly why your advocacy is one that the needs to be analyzed deeply. If you're rejecting the resolution, show me in detail why the resolution is something that is bad to participate in. Impact debates are obviously important, but need to be approached differently for Ks. PERMS! Kind of hard to win for me, I tend to buy severance arguments, but in instances where the aff shows a clear method of solvency of both the aff and K, I can vote on the PERM. Counter-perms are cool. Framework/Theory - Not a gigantic fan, but do think they need to be approached. They are important in deciding how debates should function and why a certain method or action of debate is good or bad. If you bring it up, you need to show me clearly why your analysis is important/better. FRAMING FOR ALL ARGUMENTS IS IMPORTANT THOUGH.
Judging approach: Tabula Rasa
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance
Paradigm: I've been debating since 7th grade and did both TFA and UIL for Mercedes High School and now debate for UT Austin. I've done CX, LD, and Extemp (Informative/Persuasive for UIL). I'm open to anything as its not my job to judge you on what you run but rather how you debate. T - I'm open for it, but I'm not necessarily the biggest fan. Don't get me wrong, I ran T. I believe that you need to have a legitimate reason that T is important and your voters and standards need to show this. In addition, don't be dumb. Do not say that neg loses ground and then run 2 offs with aff specific links. Also, I can tell if you're running a T is a legit Strat or if its a time sucker. A lot of this is why I tend to err aff on reasonability. Aff needs to prove how they either meet neg's Interp or that the aff's Interp is significantly better for debate or how reasonability is the better way to vote. DAs - Good tools. Generic DAs are harder to win for me. Your link's need to be specific to the aff and clearly show an internal link chain to the impacts. I really want to know the specifics of how the aff leads to the DAs impacts and why DA turns case. Also uniqueness is a big thing for me. Cps - I think Cps need to generate major competition for the aff and prove how they solve better. A lot of the times, debaters don't stress that the CP (if proven by the neg) can solve 100% of the aff, and that's usually where the aff will get in with solvency args. In addition, you need to have a clear net benefit. By net benefit I mean a full on DA. Don't just say in your CP shell that you don't link to a DA or read one card that says you solve one. You need to read a whole DA against the aff that the CP doesn't link to and/or solves. Impact analysis is important because it allows me to see the what argument actually wins on impact cal and solvency when it comes to its impacts. Ks (AFF and NEG) - Huge fan of Ks, ran a lot in high school. I have pretty generic understandings of most Ks, but don't assume I know your lit base. I AM THE BIGGEST CAP DEBATER. I have been running it for 6 years now and I know how its supposed to function. There are a lot of mistakes that debaters make when running cap and Ks in general which hurts the application of the K in round. You need to prove the exact link to the aff (for neg) and why the instance of the affirmative allows for the extrapolation of the impacts of the K. Your alternative needs to solve the aff, but does not necessarily be the most practical. This means that aff arguments that try and say that you need an alternative system for cap or that the alternative is abstract are harder to win because I believe that the nature of Ks and the societal changes they are trying to foster need methods that don't always seem like the most practical. For Aff, your K Aff needs to show clearly why your advocacy is one that the needs to be analyzed deeply. If you're rejecting the resolution, show me in detail why the resolution is something that is bad to participate in. Impact debates are obviously important, but need to be approached differently for Ks. PERMS! Kind of hard to win for me, I tend to buy severance arguments, but in instances where the aff shows a clear method of solvency of both the aff and K, I can vote on the PERM. Counter-perms are cool. Framework/Theory - Not a gigantic fan, but do think they need to be approached. They are important in deciding how debates should function and why a certain method or action of debate is good or bad. If you bring it up, you need to show me clearly why your analysis is important/better. FRAMING FOR ALL ARGUMENTS IS IMPORTANT THOUGH.
LD
Rounds judged: 7
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I've been debating since 7th grade and did both TFA and UIL for Mercedes High School and now debate for UT Austin. I've done CX, LD, and Extemp (Informative/Persuasive for UIL). I'm open to anything as its not my job to judge you on what you run but rather how you debate. T - I'm open for it, but I'm not necessarily the biggest fan. Don't get me wrong, I ran T. I believe that you need to have a legitimate reason that T is important and your voters and standards need to show this. In addition, don't be dumb. Do not say that neg loses ground and then run 2 offs with aff specific links. Also, I can tell if you're running a T is a legit Strat or if its a time sucker. A lot of this is why I tend to err aff on reasonability. Aff needs to prove how they either meet neg's Interp or that the aff's Interp is significantly better for debate or how reasonability is the better way to vote. DAs - Good tools. Generic DAs are harder to win for me. Your link's need to be specific to the aff and clearly show an internal link chain to the impacts. I really want to know the specifics of how the aff leads to the DAs impacts and why DA turns case. Also uniqueness is a big thing for me. Cps - I think Cps need to generate major competition for the aff and prove how they solve better. A lot of the times, debaters don't stress that the CP (if proven by the neg) can solve 100% of the aff, and that's usually where the aff will get in with solvency args. In addition, you need to have a clear net benefit. By net benefit I mean a full on DA. Don't just say in your CP shell that you don't link to a DA or read one card that says you solve one. You need to read a whole DA against the aff that the CP doesn't link to and/or solves. Impact analysis is important because it allows me to see the what argument actually wins on impact cal and solvency when it comes to its impacts. Ks (AFF and NEG) - Huge fan of Ks, ran a lot in high school. I have pretty generic understandings of most Ks, but don't assume I know your lit base. I AM THE BIGGEST CAP DEBATER. I have been running it for 6 years now and I know how its supposed to function. There are a lot of mistakes that debaters make when running cap and Ks in general which hurts the application of the K in round. You need to prove the exact link to the aff (for neg) and why the instance of the affirmative allows for the extrapolation of the impacts of the K. Your alternative needs to solve the aff, but does not necessarily be the most practical. This means that aff arguments that try and say that you need an alternative system for cap or that the alternative is abstract are harder to win because I believe that the nature of Ks and the societal changes they are trying to foster need methods that don't always seem like the most practical. For Aff, your K Aff needs to show clearly why your advocacy is one that the needs to be analyzed deeply. If you're rejecting the resolution, show me in detail why the resolution is something that is bad to participate in. Impact debates are obviously important, but need to be approached differently for Ks. PERMS! Kind of hard to win for me, I tend to buy severance arguments, but in instances where the aff shows a clear method of solvency of both the aff and K, I can vote on the PERM. Counter-perms are cool. Framework/Theory - Not a gigantic fan, but do think they need to be approached. They are important in deciding how debates should function and why a certain method or action of debate is good or bad. If you bring it up, you need to show me clearly why your analysis is important/better. FRAMING FOR ALL ARGUMENTS IS IMPORTANT THOUGH.
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I've been debating since 7th grade and did both TFA and UIL for Mercedes High School and now debate for UT Austin. I've done CX, LD, and Extemp (Informative/Persuasive for UIL). I'm open to anything as its not my job to judge you on what you run but rather how you debate. T - I'm open for it, but I'm not necessarily the biggest fan. Don't get me wrong, I ran T. I believe that you need to have a legitimate reason that T is important and your voters and standards need to show this. In addition, don't be dumb. Do not say that neg loses ground and then run 2 offs with aff specific links. Also, I can tell if you're running a T is a legit Strat or if its a time sucker. A lot of this is why I tend to err aff on reasonability. Aff needs to prove how they either meet neg's Interp or that the aff's Interp is significantly better for debate or how reasonability is the better way to vote. DAs - Good tools. Generic DAs are harder to win for me. Your link's need to be specific to the aff and clearly show an internal link chain to the impacts. I really want to know the specifics of how the aff leads to the DAs impacts and why DA turns case. Also uniqueness is a big thing for me. Cps - I think Cps need to generate major competition for the aff and prove how they solve better. A lot of the times, debaters don't stress that the CP (if proven by the neg) can solve 100% of the aff, and that's usually where the aff will get in with solvency args. In addition, you need to have a clear net benefit. By net benefit I mean a full on DA. Don't just say in your CP shell that you don't link to a DA or read one card that says you solve one. You need to read a whole DA against the aff that the CP doesn't link to and/or solves. Impact analysis is important because it allows me to see the what argument actually wins on impact cal and solvency when it comes to its impacts. Ks (AFF and NEG) - Huge fan of Ks, ran a lot in high school. I have pretty generic understandings of most Ks, but don't assume I know your lit base. I AM THE BIGGEST CAP DEBATER. I have been running it for 6 years now and I know how its supposed to function. There are a lot of mistakes that debaters make when running cap and Ks in general which hurts the application of the K in round. You need to prove the exact link to the aff (for neg) and why the instance of the affirmative allows for the extrapolation of the impacts of the K. Your alternative needs to solve the aff, but does not necessarily be the most practical. This means that aff arguments that try and say that you need an alternative system for cap or that the alternative is abstract are harder to win because I believe that the nature of Ks and the societal changes they are trying to foster need methods that don't always seem like the most practical. For Aff, your K Aff needs to show clearly why your advocacy is one that the needs to be analyzed deeply. If you're rejecting the resolution, show me in detail why the resolution is something that is bad to participate in. Impact debates are obviously important, but need to be approached differently for Ks. PERMS! Kind of hard to win for me, I tend to buy severance arguments, but in instances where the aff shows a clear method of solvency of both the aff and K, I can vote on the PERM. Counter-perms are cool. Framework/Theory - Not a gigantic fan, but do think they need to be approached. They are important in deciding how debates should function and why a certain method or action of debate is good or bad. If you bring it up, you need to show me clearly why your analysis is important/better. FRAMING FOR ALL ARGUMENTS IS IMPORTANT THOUGH.
Contact Information
email: benjaminnoriega9@gmail.com
cell: 956 3760178
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
CX State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Travel
Region of residence:
1
I will travel to: 1
