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 speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.

Kevin Kalra

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference: N/A

Number of years coached: N/A

Number of tournaments judged: 20+

High school attended:
Plano West Senior High School

Graduated high school: 2007

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
My name is Kevin Kalra and I would love to judge at the UIL State Tournament for Speech and Debate! Just so you know a little bit about me, I've judged on the circuit the past 3 school years, including tournaments at Prosper, Princeton, Prosper, Wylie, Sachse, Plano Senior, St. Mark's, Berkner, Guyer/UNT, Melissa, Argyle, Aubrey, Creekview, Hockaday, Plano West, and others (including UIL districts and regionals). In addition to that, while I was in high school I participated in all forms of debate, as well as extemp. In fact, I was actually trusted enough to judge at a few tourneys my junior and senior years. Not only that, but I often helped my friends prep in these categories, as well as their Individual Events. Plus, I also observed them on numerous other occasions while I was still with the team, especially during downtime at tournaments, offering constructive critiques whenever necessary. I can definitely judge any speech/debate event (I'm primarily used for Debate and Extemp, but I do enjoy the other events as well) and have already been hired to work at several other tournaments this year, including UIL for Arlington, Highland Park, Frisco, Argyle, and Garland ISD. In fact, I judged at UIL Regionals (Panola College) and TFA State this year! So if you are looking for an experienced, flexible judge, then I would love to have a contract!

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 30
Judging approach: Other (please explain below)
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 look at everything during a CX round, including the actual questioning periods, as I like to see how teams set themselves up and if they make any kind of concessions. Etiquette is always important to me, as I've see some chippy, sassy, condescending, and passive-aggressive behavior on the circuit. I usually make this clear to the two sides before the round starts, as I value respect, courtesy, and professionalism very highly, especially since I've been in the corporate world for 5+ years now. I am ok with speed, but do like a deliberate, conversational style the most. However, I do not like flat out spreading. The real world applications to spreading are limited, and above all else, debate is a speaking event. I always ask that the two sides emphasize main contentions, framework arguments, and subpoints. As is the case in almost any kind of debate round, I look at the 3 modes of persuasion: logos, pathos, and ethos. This really helps me draw a baseline as to who I feel had the better round and can even assist me with elaborating on my written critique. For Policy Debate, I do look at stock issues, but I also like to view things from a policymaker perspective. I will allow Counterplans and Kritiks, but as is the case with almost anything else I look at, I hope they are done well. I tend not to lean one way or the other on a resolution, as I will conduct my own research to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Furthermore, as an incoming 1L to the University of Texas School of Law, I have worked hard to train myself to keep and open mind and view an issue from multiple lenses. This keeps me neutral, which means that the way I vote is the way I was legitimately persuaded during the round. I also look at chemistry and teamwork during policy rounds, as I sometimes see one teammate do most of the work. If this is the case, I try to give written feedback to that team to make sure they look a little better during their next round. Finally, I take written feedback very seriously, as I truly want each debater to get better. I have been complimented many times on the advice and critiques I have given, and look forward to continuing that tradition at state, if given the opportunity.

LD

Rounds judged: 50
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I look at everything during an LD round, including the CX periods, as I like to see how the competitors set themselves up and if they make any kind of concessions. Etiquette is always important to me, as I've see some chippy, sassy, condescending, and passive-aggressive behavior on the circuit. I usually make this clear to the two sides before the round starts, as I value respect, courtesy, and professionalism very highly, especially since I've been in the corporate world for 5+ years now. I am ok with speed, but do like a deliberate, conversational style the most. However, I do not like flat out spreading. The real world applications to spreading are limited, and above all else, debate is a speaking event. I always ask that the two sides emphasize main contentions, framework arguments, and subpoints. As is the case in almost any kind of debate round, I look at the 3 modes of persuasion: logos, pathos, and ethos. This really helps me draw a baseline as to who I feel had the better round and can even assist me with elaborating on my critique (written and oral). Specific to LD, I will allow almost anything, as I enjoy philosophy/theory, as well as evidence/statistics. I use the Value and Criteria/Criterion as voters during the end of the round, but also ask that the competitors give me voters of their own throughout the debate. Burdens, observations, definitions, interpretations, etc. on the framework can be very important, so I like to see if competitors will actually attack/counter such devices. My approach to each LD topic is open minded (generally speaking, I tell the students that I am blank slate/tabula rasa), so I am a nice mix of philosophical and pragmatic. As for appeals, I allow emotional and factual ones, and consider myself as "leaning" somewhere in the middle, as a nice blend of both will go a long way. I LOVE LOVE LOVE attacks and defenses on the value-criterion debate, as I feel that's what made LD debate so popular. Unfortunately, I have seen many rounds were the V&C are really just there for show and tell, so I also try to make it clear to the debaters that they should not neglect this aspect of the round. I tend not to lean one way or the other on a resolution, as I will conduct my own research to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Furthermore, as an incoming 1L to the University of Texas School of Law, I have worked hard to train myself to keep and open mind and view an issue from multiple lenses. This keeps me neutral, which means that the way I vote is the way I was legitimately persuaded during the round. Finally, I take written feedback very seriously, as I truly want each debater to get better. I have been complimented many times on the advice and critiques I have given, and look forward to continuing that tradition at state, if given the opportunity.

Contact Information

email: kevin.kalra5@gmail.com
cell: 972 8098542
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry

Travel

Region of residence:
2

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