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.

Christopher Dickson

Current high school:
Independent Debate Coach Assistant - Gilmer HS, Cushing HS, and Winona HS

Currently coaching?: yes

Conference: A

Number of years coached: 17

Number of tournaments judged: 11 or more

High school attended:
Troup High School

Graduated high school: 2000 or before

Participated in high school: yes

Participated in college: yes

Judging qualifications:
I have been involved in speech and debate at the high school and college level (either as a competitor, adjudicator, or coach) for 20 years. I have debated both value and policy throughout my college debate career. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Speech Communications from the University of Texas at Tyler in Tyler, TX and an Associate of Science degree in Theater Arts from Panola College in Carthage, TX. Providing confident, results-focused leadership in theater arts and speech education has been a passion of mine for several years. I have achieved success in these and other key areas within various programs and projects. I currently serve as a contract part-time coach for various school districts who do not have a full-time coach or for those districts who would like extra assistance. In professional positions such as Director of Field Operations, Executive Director, President, and Part-time High School Debate Coach (Contract), I led teams of 50 to 150, managed million-dollar budgets, managed multiple special events and projects, directed programs to successful outcomes, with an emphasis on education. Some of my highlighted achievements are as follows: Led and instructed multiple high school Lincoln Douglas and Cross Examination teams (A, AA, AAA) from 1994-2011; advancing several teams to CX and LD State for their efforts. Earned Honors in High School and Collegiate Speech: IPDA National Debate Champion 1997,1998. NPDA Team National Semi-Finalist 1996, CEDA/NDT Qualifier 1995, 1996, 2A CX Debate State Qualifier in High School. In addition, multiple awards were won for poetry, prose, and extemporaneous speaking. Adjudicated several High School UIL academic events 1994-1998 (i.e. Prose, Poetry, CX and LD Debate, Extemporaneous Speech, etc.). Adjudicated College events 1998-2010. Managed and coordinated 1A District One-Act Play events (1994-1996). Acted and received recognition and awards for several theatrical high school, collegiate, and community productions (1990-1997) Fostered partnerships and built programs within the university campus community that improved the educational environment for students, staff, and faculty. Instructed and trained collegiate and adult learners in D-FY-IT, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Incident Command Systems, Crime and Justice Studies, and Leadership.

Judging Philosophy


Rounds judged: 40
Judging approach: tabula rosa
Policy priority: Equal
Evidence philosophy: quality
Paradigm: Excellent flow judge; votes on well developed arguments that are carried throughout the round. It is my opinion that the debaters should clearly establish the parameters, standards, and weighing mechanisms for the round. I don't have any arguments that I favor over any others, it depends on the round and how effectively each argument is defended in the context of the debate. I stick very closely to the flow, so dropped arguments are a big deal unless there is no framework given as to how those arguments outweigh. I prefer debate rounds where the overall picture is kept in mind and appreciate teams who make as many direct connections between arguments as possible to yield good clash. I value intelligence and sound argumentation. I look for a clean balance of style and substance in delivery. The fastest way to drop speaker points with me is being rude, disrespectful or over-arrogant in a round.


Rounds judged: 10
Approach: Equal
Values, criteria, arguments, analysis, and delivery are all key to LD. A winning debater will encompass all of these elements. I am looking for good clash and interesting debate. Although L-D debate should have some evidence, its style should not parallel that of policy debate. Your case must lead to the fulfillment of your value! In general, I prefer a straight-forward round, but I will keep a rigorous flow and vote in the least interventionist way possible no matter the arguments. The best way to win is: framework/clash/weighing, provide warrants and impacts, comparative impact calc. I'm looking for you as a debater to communicate why your args outweigh/turn your opps. Please feel free to ask me additional questions if you are looking for specifics.

Contact Information

cell: 972 832-4046

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:


Region of residence:
Area 5 Waco/Lufkin

I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9