Robert Whitaker ParadigmLast changed 9/23 5:52P EST
Probably not as dumb as I seem. Probably.
I debated throughout high school, then at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Central Oklahoma, and I currently assistant-coach Alpharetta HS
I’m comfortable with all speeds and styles, especially those regarding the k – I’m most familiar with poststructural + positional criticisms, though you should do whatever it is you do best – you can just as easily win with a plan, theory, framework, etc. Give me your best args and write my ballot. I privilege tech over truth and frequently vote for arguments that contravene my personal beliefs. I judge k affs most rounds but this only thickens my belief that they need some relation to the resolution, even if only neg-neg.
I flow on paper, if you care. I'll yell clear twice and then stop flowing anything incomprehensible. If you begin a speech in unsettling fashion (e.g. giving an inaccurate roadmap or jumping the gun with 400+wpm), I'll act flustered and require a few effervescently dramatic seconds to get my affairs in order. If I'm otherwise not flowing or I'm on the wrong sheet, fear not - it's because either you've created a mental backlog of arguments that I'm flowing in retrospect or I'm repackaging your arguments to make them more palatable to my flow, or both.
Some things that frustrate me: excessive rudeness (toward opponents or judges), offensive strategies (ableism inevitable/good, for instance), and clipping (zeroes + L = bad time for you). I have no trepidation about dropping clippers - I'm likely to notice audible cues in speech behavior, start recording + checking/highlighting in real time, review as thoroughly as possible, consult tab protocols, and serve sweet justice. Also, and I can’t believe I need to write this, please don’t engage in acts of self-harm to win my ballot (you know who you are). Instead, please demonstrate mastery of persuasion, word economy, and 2nr/2ar vision – teams that reverse-engineer strategies and execute them methodically speech-by-speech impress me the most – a searing cross-ex is, of course, welcome – entertaining and innovative teams will be rewarded with speaker points.
A few final notes: not a huge fan of process counterplans (though I’ll still vote for them as they feel largely inevitable/compensatory on this topic), conditionality is pretty good (as is neg fiat), and link uniqueness wins rounds.
edit: a number of folks have asked how to interpret the points that I distribute. all the answers await you below (I once used a rather rigid variant of a pool-weighted scale, though it's become a touch more adaptive as inflation has, well, ballooned)
00.0 - 27.0 = you clipped or did something undoubtedly offensive
27.1 - 27.8 = bottom 10-15% of pool; lacking clarity or pool-relative skill; possibly rude; failing to grasp arguments
27.9 - 28.2 = bottom quartile; failing to maximize or control CX; not persuasive; substantial room for growth
28.3 - 28.5 = bottom 50%; fixable strategic shortcomings; speech redoes/polishing needed; likely not clearing
28.6 - 28.8 = top quartile-ish; might clear on speaks and/or get a lower award; lacking verbal techne to clear echelon
28.9 - 29.0 = deserving of speaker award
29.1 - 29.3 = among the very best at the tournament; good luck clearing this tier
29.4 - 29.5 = undisputed top speaker; extremely rare / equivalent to encountering a shiny pokemon
29.6 - 29.7 = help, giorgio broke my scale
29.8 - 29.9 = unprecedented
30.0 = lol over my dead body