here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Bass, Steven
Wheaton College
Background of the critic:
I did parli debate for two years in college, and have judged at a couple of tournaments
since graduating. I work as an economist, but I have remained connected to debate as an
adviser to the Wheaton College team.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I like policy debates because they tend to result in the most clarity. I've seen great
fact/value debates, but I haven't found them to be common. However, I want to see the
strongest case you have. Don't pigeonhole the resolution into a policy round if it's going
to decrease the quality of the debate. I'm liable to give GOV the presumption on this one.
Other than that, I like to think of myself as tabula rasa, but nobody is. The best I can do
is full disclosure. I try to limit the effect that any of these things have on the ballot, but...
1. I hate unrealistic arguments. Debate should reflect reality. For example, the world has
not seen a nuclear bomb dropped in war in over 60 years. If people acted like debaters
claim, we would have destroyed ourselves thousands of times over. Extreme positions
are occasionally valid (India/Pakistan dome to mind), but overused. However, if you
drop or mishandle a crap argument with crap impacts, I have no qualms about voting
against you, I'll just hate that you made me do it.
2. I'm an economist by profession. I like economic discourse. The language of
economics (incentives, supply and demand, costs and benefits, etc.) appeals to me.
However, if you don't understand the argument, don't make it.
3. I have a status quo bias. Risk aversion is prominent enough that a plan that's unlikely
to do much harm but unlikely to do much good is not socially optimal. In my view, a
wash is much closer to a true tie than what I gather to be the common line of thinking.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Most importantly, you need to be intelligible. For experienced debaters, that's not much
of a problem. However, if you can't combine speed and clarity, don't. 5 clear arguments
are better than 10 arguments that I half understand. Beyond that, rhetoric obviously
matters. I'll base my decision mostly on the flow, and I'll justify my decision based on
10