Skip to main content
Image of white crest following text that reads The University of Texas at Austin
University Interscholastic League Logo spells UIL with a red star and texas shape cutout on the U
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.

Chad Flisowski

Current high school:
None

Currently coaching?: No

Conference:

Number of years coached: 12

Number of tournaments judged: 1

High school attended:
Calhoun HS

Graduated high school: 1993

Participated in high school: Yes

Participated in college: No

Judging qualifications:
I have judged speech and debate since 1993. I coached speech and debate from 2004-2016. I have had many champions of invitational, district, and regional meets - both UIL and other circuits - and state and national finalists. While coaching, I was part of the UIL CX State Debate Meet Tab Room from 2010-2019. I have also served as Tab Room director for the NSDA Gulf Coast District Meet. Also while coaching, I have presented at Student Activity Conferences at Sam Houston State University, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, and University of Texas-Austin. I have attended and presented at the NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting. In 2010, I was honored with the selection of the topic paper I wrote about "Space" being chosen to be the 2011-2012 National Topic. After leaving coaching, I have remained involved in speech and debate by continuing to judge district and state meets and presenting at Student Activity Conferences.

Judging Philosophy

CX

Rounds judged: 6
Judging approach: Policy Maker
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 primarily a policy maker judge who weighs impacts in a round. I also consider the educational impact of the round in my decision - this means I judge teams on how they were coached rather than my personal preferences. So regardless of how I feel about a particular argument - such as topicality or kritics - I will evaluate the argument as presented in the round. I also remain an educator, and place great emphasis on decorum and appropriate speech in a round. Offensive language in any manner is unacceptable. I prefer to weigh impacts in a round, but have decided rounds on on-case arguments, especially solvency. If you have particular questions about arguments, feel free to ask prior to the round.

LD

Rounds judged: 0
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
I prefer a round with clarity in position and standards. I prefer values and criteria, not just due to traditional approaches to LD, but also as clear frameworks with which to evaluate the round. I struggle with evaluating some more progressive positions on the negative because they often do not class with the affirmative position, and I believe that the burden of clash is paramount for the negative positive. I believe that quality of argument outweighs quantity in LD debate.

Contact Information

email: chadflisowski@gmail.com
cell:
office:

Availability Information

Meet types:
Invitational District Regional CX State State Meet

Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp

Travel

Region of residence:
3

I will travel to: 1 3 4 5

Illustration of state of Texas with 9 color coded numbered regions.