Appalachian Speech and Debate Championship
2021 — NSDA Campus, WV/US
Synchronous Speech Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
You may provide my information on the email chain email@example.com
I am a graduate of Davis & Elkins College with a Major in Political Science with minors in History & Communications. While at Davis & Elkins I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and International Public Debate. I am currently a Political Organizer for West Virginia Working Families Party doing advocacy at the local, state, and national level and also a member of the Herbert Henderson Office of Minority Affairs Advisory Board for West Virginia, as well a host of my broadcast “Black Enrichment”. Check out my resources https://instabio.cc/3010819aW3fSi?fbclid=IwAR2QXNwHjtOwHJyV8NaRtHhg43MtGef-IrfG26M3W5EooEBH0XwDKU4GxOw
I was awarded Pi Kappa Delta Rank Superior March 2019, National Top Speaker in IPDA March 2020, and am most experienced in Anti-Racism Strategy/Critical Race Theory.
How I Judge YOU
- I will strike your ballot down the second you warrant slavery or white supremacy “good”, it doesn’t work in life and it sure wont work in debate as long as I Judge
- I will listen to any argument *barring* the ones I stated above… tell me how to vote, if you let me think, I will fail you every time. I like clear framework, though if yours is unique take your time and develop how I should view the round and what to expect from your case. If you and opponents have little clash over framework, it will show when I make a final decision.
- Attack evidence, not debaters.
- Speed is fine, I will raise my hand and yell “clear” if your attempt to spread is unclear or too fast.
- I don’t flow CX, attack their questions /answers in your next constructive speech if you’d like it flowed
- Debate is a skill like karate, know when to use it and when not to go too far… HAVE FUN and laugh a little before/between rounds
- the better you paint pictures and use rhythm in your case, the more likely I am to give you higher speaks.
Current School Affiliation
Chair, Depart of English, Elkins High School
Education Entrepreneurship Graduate Student, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education
Speech & Debate Program Coordinator, Randolph County Schools
Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)
Elkins Middle School (Elkins, WV)
Experience as a Competitor
I did not participate in speech and debate activities until I was in college. The program at Davis & Elkins College was primarily focused on public debates and less so on competitive speech and debate. My time at D&E lead me to see the value of debate to shape and improve public discourse. Additional details about my experience are below.
Davis & Elkins College (2013-2016)
Public Debate (debates on campus and in the community, Madison Cup @ James Madison University, iDebate Rwanda)
College Forensics Association (Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, Poetry Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking)
Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. However, I am willing to accept CPs, DAs, and Ks, but please be mindful of your opponents/judges ability to adapt. However, I am not likely to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is very abusive.
Speed I'm cool with speed, but be aware of how technology impacts how you are heard.
TL;DR I vote on impact. I want to hear why your argument matters. I will give preference to the debater that does the best job of showing the impact of negating or affirming the resolution.
General Debate Philosophy
1. I judge on impact. Tell me why your argument matters.
2. Create strong links between your claims and your evidence.
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
A little about me: I am a former high school Public Forum debater and WV State Champion and a former WVU College Policy debater. I also was a Speech competitor for all 4 years of high school (DI, OO, and POI were my events of choice). I am a current graduate student and federal employee. I have fairly in-depth knowledge of a lot of things covered in topics. I am not a lay judge, and can/will keep up and flow the entire round.
Paradigm: I will vote first based on my flow of the round. If you are dropping points consistently and not arguing the topic, that will cause you to lose. If I have two teams/competitors that covered each point, then I will vote based on the information provided and logic and arguments used.
Speed: I have no objections to speed as long as you speak clearly. I am used to people speaking pretty fast at me. I will not deduct your speaker points if you need to speak slower. Debate is an opportunity for learning and growth, so if you cannot speak fast, don't push yourself and mess up. Just try your best to make your words clear at whatever speed you're comfortable with.
Public Forum was my first debate love, so I find myself being harder on the debaters I watch in this event because I want you to be better. The most important thing to remember in PF is that NEG does not need to provide solvency for the topic and you should not introduce new information in the last set of speeches. Those are two things that I will take off points for and could possibly flow in the other team's favor. PF is also a less technically challenging debate, so you should be working hard to convince me that your side is the clear winner and best solution.
While I did not debate LD, I have judged it in the past. For me, make sure that your value and VC are clear, and you stick to those throughout the round. Keep me engaged, and it will help you in the end.
Policy: Policy is what I debate now so I am used to its speed and versatility. For the AFF, provide a clear plan with clear extensions throughout. Make sure you are hitting home why the plan is good, why it is timely, and why it should be implemented. For the NEG, I'm really okay with whatever you're going to run. As a 1A/2N, DAs and CPs are my NEGs of choice, but I'm cool with whatever you're going to run as long as it makes sense and you are able to hit the AFF well. My biggest comment is that if you are going to run a K, please don't make it generic. Generic Ks are generally not wonderful to sit through because the AFF is prepared for them.
Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I typically don’t flow it unless a really relevant point is made. That does not mean I am not listening. Don't shoot yourself in the foot during Cross.
Decorum: There is nothing I dislike more than a team who exerts superiority in the round and bullies the other team, especially if they are more experienced. Being civil goes a long way with me. I know sometimes our egos get in the way and we just can't help it, but that may reflect poorly on the outcome of the round. My biggest plea is that if you are debating someone less-experienced than you, BE NICE. They are learning, just as you did at some point.
Ballots: My on-ballot comments are worth a read, and I am not just saying that because I wrote them. Everyone has things they can improve, and constructive criticism will make you a better debater. I may also suggest some sources or readings in your comments to help you understand the topic even more. I know that this probably won't be helpful for another topic, but if I include them, it is because I think they will make you a better competitor.
Have a great tournament and good luck!