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.
John Klassen
Current high school:
Currently coaching?: No
Conference:
Number of years coached: 5
Number of tournaments judged: 5
High school attended:
Burlington High School--Iowa
Graduated high school: 1983
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: No
Judging qualifications:
I established a new debate and speech program at Trinity School of Midland in 2017. We competed in all events except CX. In 5 years, Trinity students achieved 22 entries at NSDA Nationals; there, one Trinity student was a national finalist in a Supplemental platform event, and others broke prelims in Informative Speaking and twice in Public Forum debate.
I was named Coach of the Year in the Tall Cotton NSDA District in 2022.
I was a policy debater in high school in the early 1980s. I still love the event, but not the TFA/TOC version.
Judging Philosophy
CX
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 am oriented to stock issues. That said, I do not go into a debate expecting to be told what I want to hear. I consider anything, but the more exotic it is, the more it has to be explained to me. I will vote on anything that makes sense, persuasively explicated. I do not expect speed to be conversational. However, I cannot flow what I do not understand. Debate is still an oral advocacy event, so I do not want to be on an email chain. I dislike debate jargon. I likely will understand what you are referring to, but I might not. Male debaters need to watch their tone and conduct with regard to female opponents. If debaters cross the line with disrespect, I will drop them.
LD
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I am a traditionally-oriented LD judge. That said, I do not go into a debate expecting to be told what I want to hear. I consider anything, but the more exotic it is, the more it has to be explained to me. I will vote on anything that makes sense, persuasively explicated. I do not expect speed to be conversational. However, I cannot flow what I do not understand. Debate is still an oral advocacy event, so I do not want to be on an email chain. I dislike debate jargon. I likely will understand what you are referring to, but I might not. I might add this: last time I studied Bentham/Rawls et al was in college a long time ago, so you need to brush me up. Mere invocation of a philosopher's name is probably not going to do it for me. Male debaters need to watch their tone and conduct with regard to female opponents. If debaters cross the line with disrespect, I will drop them.
Contact Information
email: klassendebate@gmail.com
cell: 432 6387332
office:
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
State Meet
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
2
I will travel to: 1 2 3 5 6 7 8
