Odekirik,+Scott

2013 I am going back to flowing in a traditional way, I now priviledge organization and technical competency alongside content depth. I am sick of the way that the speech doc is ruining the flow. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow." Do what you do best.

Fall 2006

The main thing I want to say is that I really like judging. I want to judge you. No matter what you say or how you say it I will do my best to be fair and fully engage your round.

I thought that the best way to express my views about debate was to get Jessica Yeats to write my philosophy. I have been coaching her a while now and I think she has a good perspective on my predilections:

Scott Odekirk’s favorite debaters to watch were Andy Ryan and Michael Klinger. I think this is instructive. Scott likes good arguments that are offensive and compete (he’s a sucker for the perm). In general, he’d probably rather you engage the aff than complain about it, but if you don’t have ground you don’t have ground and if you’re smart, you can probably figure out a way to make that interact with their offense. Disads and counterplans are good – specific case strats will impress him. The one caveat is that he doesn’t regularly read that that literature so you have a slightly higher burden to coherently explain the internal links/competition scenario/etc. He’s unlikely to vote on theory if its highly technical and scantily warranted but if you spend the time explaining, impacting and drawing distinctions about the central abuse claim youre probably in good shape.

Criticisms: If it is either your most strategic option or what you feel most comfortable debating, you should go for it. If not, don’t. Case specific links/analogies/”examples” are crucial. It is also important that you justify why your competition scenario is theoretically consistent with the thesis of your argument. If you are aff, point out why its not. Defending your aff (even analytically) will go much farther than the “A/T: the K” block. Identity politics are not really his flavor academically but he will certainly listen to and evaluate your argument. Scott knows (despite sometimes not admitting) that debate is about winning. That doesn’t mean he dislikes cheating – it just means he knows why youre doing it.

He doesn’t flow like most people do – but neither do I really and in a lot of ways it kinda seems like its irrelevant whether you flow in columns or in paragraphs. He knows what youre saying and he’s cognizant of dropped arguments. The only tangible consequence of his flow is that he’s more likely to evaluate the debate according to “fundamental premises” which should stress the importance of strategic vision and moments of clarity in the last rebuttles.

Debate smart. Make intuitive arguments. Be persuasive.

-Jessica Yeats