here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Totally fine by me. Like anything else they should be well warranted. I prefer to see
specific solvency arguments for your performance and alternatives, especially if your
alternative is reject. I need a little more explanation than "reject solves" You can win
without these things, but it would make things easier.
Any additional comments:
Speed is fine, although if a team asks you to slow down it might behoove you to do so if
you care about your speaker points. You should call points of order, but I wont flow new
arguments even if you don't call them. You should demonstrate abuse on any theory
arguments including topicality.
Liberto, Nickie
Wheaton College
Background of the critic:
I'm an assistant coach for Wheaton College, but debated for three
years at Vanguard University in Southern California.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I will vote on the flow as much as humanly possible. I like clash,
humor, speed and sarcasm. Give me examples and a real
weighing mechanism with which to weigh the round so I don't have to
make the decision on my own.
Overall I believe you can try and educate me on the trichotomy of
debate, but they aren't debates that I am fond of watching. Actually,
I'd rather poke my eyes out than watch a
fact/value debate. If you
insist on running some sort of fact or value case, please provide a
framework with which I should judge the round-- preferrably one that
gives your opponents equal ground and isn't a totology. (Is that even
possible) Do not tell me that there is some rule in the NPDA
rulebook about trichotomy unless you are prepared to whip out your
copy of the rules and show me where you found it.
101