Have questions? adriankyleabdul@gmail.com

Yes, I'd like to be added to the email chain. I do prefer SpeechDrop as an easier, faster alternative.

Anything listed here is subject to change.

tl;dr: Jokes are cool and appreciated as long as we aren't punching down. Speed is fine as long as I have the cards in front of me, but ensure that you slow down for any analytics. The smartest things said in round are said outside of cards, so don't let me miss it. Otherwise, have fun and be good people.

Experience: (I cycled through debate formats due to circumstance, but Policy was my main debate)

LD (~2 Years)

PF (~1 Year)

Congress (One Tournament)

Big Questions (~1 Year)

Policy/CX (4 Years)

I went to nationals for Policy after my sophomore year. I have a serious love/hate relationship with Policy; I love the format, but hate how certain jargon/techniques have stifled real learning opportunities and discouraged new debaters.

That being said, here is how I evaluate specific arguments.

K: Despite what I just said, I enjoy K debate conceptually. If you are reading this trying to decide if you should run a K in front of me, you may. That being said, unless you are prepared and understand the material, running a K will not impress me anymore than a stock issue. However, exceptional understanding and usage of the literature absolutely will. High risk/High reward.

T: If you are trying to win on T, I expect you to go for it. Arguing that abuse has occurred/abuse is possible sounds less credible when you run it with a half-dozen additional off case arguments. If you don't think your T arguments are strong enough to warrant an entire rebuttal speech, I'd suggest going for something else or at least making it the majority of your speech instead of a footnote.

Theory: I love Theory, it's an incredibly useful toolkit in a debate format that grows increasingly faster/more technical every tournament. That being said, I will totally vote on reasonability if you don't properly describe your abuses/voters/impacts.

Else: Tell me how to vote and what to consider significant. I will vote on risk of an impact, unless you properly weigh the impacts of the debate during your speeches. Please point out when your opponent drops an argument; I will notice it but it is your job as a competitor to explain the significance of it.

WSD (Nats '18)

I expect you to embrace the conversational nature of WSD and deliver informational speeches in language and style that can be understood by a layman.

--Definitions--

The adjudicator guide to WSD states: "The Proposition must present a reasonable definition of the motion:-Choose the obvious meaning of the motion -Reasonable parameters are okay (ex. excluding burn victims from a cosmetic surgery ban); unreasonable parameters are not (tautologies, truisms, time/place set)"

From this, it is clear that both NSDA and I want to uphold the accessible and non-squirrely debate spirit in WSD. I believe that definitions should be the most logical and easily understood meaning by a layman.

Don't give some strange quantum science definition for the word "immediate" and say that immediate can't happen because it's already past.

--Scoring--

If your side has the most points overall at the end of the round, you win. The rubric is broken down into content, style, and strategy. Therefore, any team that offers stellar arguments but bland style will probably lose to a team that has decent arguments and decent style.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

75+: Showstopper. I will be thinking about your speech for days. Difficult to describe what kind of speech belongs here, but it will generally require tying your content and style together very neatly.

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

--POIs--

Answer at least two or three POIs during your speech, and make sure they aren't just the first two or three that pop up. When given the opportunity to deliver POIs, stand frequently or I will assume that you have little issue with what your opponent is saying.

I am the head coach at Arbor View High School, and besides Speech & Debate, I also teach English and rhetoric. I approach topics in both speech and debate as objectively as possible and, as a teacher, am well-practiced in not letting my own biases and opinions color my judgments in rounds. Therefore, my feedback and judgment are based upon skills shows within rounds and evidence presented. I look for that evidence to be backed up with cited sources and expect competitors to have those sources ready if an opponent requests to look at any cards. I hold students accountable to the rules of an event, and ballots will reflect what I see. I use the same skills that assessing and evaluating students in my English classroom require in the speech or debate rounds as a judge. I expect fair debates and integrity of all competitors.

I teach honors and AP World History. I approaching teaching with an open mind and do not allow my biases and opinions color my judgment in teaching. This approach is how I conduct my teaching as well as when judging. My feedback and judgment are based upon skills shows within rounds and evidence presented. I look for evidence to be backed up with cited sources and expect competitors to have those sources ready if an opponent requests to look at any cards. I hold students accountable to the rules of an event, and ballots will reflect what I see. I expect fair debates and integrity of all competitors.