Davis,+Alysia

Alysia Davis

Alysia Cockrell Davis

James Madison University 8 years coaching/judging 5 tournaments this year

Who I Am: Gordon Stables said something at the 2006 USC tournament that resonated with me about the short collective memory of the debate community. There are a lot of characters who cycle in and out of this activity, and therefore I thought a little bio might be helpful to those of you trying to decide if I can call a debate or not. I debated open for four years at Mercer University under the direction of Shawn Whalen and Mike Davis, graduating in 1998. I am a 4-year participant of the NDT, debated in elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals, and coached at the University of Rochester, the University of Georgia, Georgia State University, and now James Madison University. I have a Master’s degree in Public Policy from Rochester, and I’m currently working on my Ph.D. in Women’s Studies at Emory University. I’ve judged a gazillion debates since 1998 -- including the final round of CEDA Nationals -- and I was awarded the “Southeast CEDA Top Critic” award in 2003.

10 Things You Really Want to Know: If you were to ask me before a debate if I have any predispositions, my answer would be “no.” I really do strive to assess the debate the way you tell me to, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a few preferences:

1. You should be nice. You see these people all the time – make the round as pleasant as possible, and don’t be afraid to make some new friends.

2. Clarity matters. I don’t care if you’re fast, but if you’re not making an effort to be clear on your tags/cards/arguments/theory blocks/pre-written overviews, I’ll be making faces at you from the back of the room.

3. Argument is imperative. If rebuttals just include a bunch of card extensions, I may go ahead and read the cards… but interpretation is left to me. WARRANTED arguments are important, and I think I have a pretty high threshold for things like impact scenarios, comparative analysis, explaining how the ballot functions, etc.

4. I don’t mind theory debates, but if you want to win you must commit to it. Extending your blocks is typically not enough. I don’t think I have any proclivities for any type of theory arguments, except perhaps for “reject the argument, not the team.”

5. I’m not willing to say that I love/hate policy/critical/performance debates. I find all of them interesting, and it’s up to you to tell me the implications of your argument. That said, I generally think debate is an educational game which should be fair.

6. Don’t assume that your politics match mine and that by merely signing my ballot in your favor I will be endorsing your project/movement/revolution. More than likely, if I vote for you in such an instance it’s because you’re making smart arguments that convince me of the efficacy of your criticism/performance in the context of a competitive debate round. That said, if you are inclined to such arguments, don’t blow off the framework debate.

7. I’m sensitive to gender-exclusive language. It distracts me from the substance of your arguments. I probably wouldn’t vote on it if such language were to become an issue in the debate, but flagrant use of it could affect your speaker points. As a corollary, I also don’t really like vulgar and/or sexualized framings of debate arguments either. This is a rhetorical activity – try to be responsible in your discursive choices.

8. Take your arguments beyond jargon – I guess this goes with my preference for warranted arguments stated above, but I really don’t give much credence to “uniqueness overwhelms the link,” “we control uniqueness,” and similar catchphrases as meaningful arguments. It is fine to say such phrases, but the next sentence out of your mouth should explain WHY these things are true.

9. Author’s names are not arguments – I think I have one great skill in debate… I keep a really pretty flow. I comprehensively flow tags; I flow the text of cards. But you know what? I often don’t get author’s names… and if I do write something down, it’s pretty likely that Reardon may end up on my paper as Beerhead or something equally wrong. So don’t extend cards by authors’ names alone. Nothing makes me grumpier than when my pretty flow gets messed up. ;)

10. I am not an expert on every type of literature out there. I have a cursory understanding of some aspects of the courts topic, and a deep understanding of some other aspects. Gender debates? Check. Procedural legal debates? Uh… not so much. I won’t pretend to understand the more technical aspects of the legal system, but I will promise to work really hard in the debate to understand all of the relevant applications of your evidence. You should, however, do yourself a favor and try to make my job as easy as possible.