Skip to main content
Image of UT logo that reads The 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.

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