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 a History and Geography teacher at Lied STEM Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I have been judging as a favor for a former student and have really come to love seeing young people speak! Congress is the event that I am most familiar with. I have no problem judging 3 or 4 rounds at a tournament...I know, I'm crazy, right??!!

As someone who has no previous experience with Speech and Debate events, I have developed my own way of judging events through the eyes of the uninitiated.

Since Congress is what I do best, this is what I like to see:

-Please try not to just read off your pad or computer. Anyone can read well, but reading well is not the same as speaking well. Give your speech to the chamber and not to your screen/paper. Competitors who just read their speeches will lose points with me.

-Be conscious of your volume and your enunciation. I need to be able to understand what your saying in order to judge your fairly. Don't yell! That will make me not want to listen. Study the pronunciation of words before giving your speech. Nothing says you don't understand a topic more than when you mispronounce things!

-Make your speech more conversational, rather than technical. Explain things in ways that are easy to understand. Don't assume that I am going to understand your acronyms.

-Make your speech unique. Don't rehash the same things that other speakers have said. The whole point of a debate is to argue the legislation, not to just hit copy and paste.

-Don't be afraid to put your personality into your speech. It's OK sometimes to smile!

-Don't be insulting and rude. That will lose you points. I have no problem with aggressive questioning, but don't let it get personal.

-Good cross-x questions get my attention. Don't ask fluff questions. Ask something relevant.

-Be active. Don't just sit and practice your speech to yourself. Pay attention to what is going on in the chamber. Participate in the experience!

Feel free to ask me questions!

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.