Wheelock,+Amanda

Amanda Wheelock Norman HS ‘16 Mills College ‘20 Email: awheelock@mills.edu Please add me to the email chain.

I currently study policy and economics and have a solid understanding of international issues. My pronouns are she/her.

I debated all four years of high school primarily in LD. I attended the Oklahoma state tournament all four years, three times in LD, placing 2nd in 2015. I attended NSDA nationals three years in domestic extemp and placed 24th in 2016, so I appreciate clear and articulate speaking. Most of my tournament experience was in Oklahoma, so my background is relatively traditional, but I do have some experience in circuit debate and can handle speed. I’d say I can decently handle a 6/10 in speed. I will yell clear or speed once if I cannot understand you.

If you do choose to go fast, please especially emphasize all tags/card names and make it clear when you are transitioning between cards/arguments. I do appreciate evidence comparison, but don’t just argue impacts. Warrants are extremely important in my decision, so the better you support your reasoning, the more likely I am to vote for you. This can include explanations of research methodologies.

To quote Mattie Witman quoting Larry Zhou ‘"Evidence comparison is a lost art.’ Do with that what you will.”

Something must be a complete argument for me to vote on it. If it is extended without a warrant or impact in a later speech, then I will not vote on it. "They dropped it" is not enough if it was never a complete argument to begin with.

If I didn’t understand your argument, I won’t vote on it, and I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand an argument.

Since I’m from Oklahoma, I do appreciate a good ethical framework debate, but it is not the only thing I consider in my RFD. Just please make sure you have solid links between contentions/cards and whatever standard you are trying to uphold.

I appreciate arguments that are philosophical in nature but again this is not a deal-breaker. If you can defend and execute an argument well, I will listen to it.

I think I can be a good judge for anyone provided they explain their arguments well and do clear weighing. I judge the round holistically based on both framework and contention level analysis. Voting issues are always a great way to summarize the round and give me extra clarity on why you should win, but not giving them isn’t a deal breaker. My judging is based on the flow, but if you cannot speak clearly it’ll be harder to flow, which will not work in your favor!

I start speaks at around a 28, and probably will not give you a 30. I give high speaker points to debaters who demonstrate a substantial amount of content knowledge and execute their strategy well.