here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Whearty, Brandan
Palomar College
Background of the critic:
I competed in Parli for 3 years at NAU, did my graduate work under Matt Taylor at
CSULB, and have coached for Palomar College for 4 years.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what
will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters
both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate,
and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality,
C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just
because it’s a procedural issue it doesn’t mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a
team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two. I will also listen to Reverse
Voters if they’re warranted, so be careful with bad T and K that you link to. ;-)
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry
lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. To put that another way, I
won't intervene to make your blips mean something, and if you can't keep track of your
own answers, don't expect me to. I think that the words, “because” and “for example” are
important, and you should probably use them a lot. If you outspread me or lose me on the
flow, I’ll let you know. FYI, I have repetitive stress injuries to my hands which make
prolonged, high speed flowing painful.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
While I certainly require the negative to cover case, I think a smart affirmative should use
those concessions count.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
A quick way to get on my bad side is to disrespect other events in our activity. “This isn’t
CEDA, so you’re bad” isn’t an argument that makes any sense to me, especially since as
communication professionals, you’re supposed to know better. I would never dream of
190