here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I’ve voted on some pretty wacky arguments this year, like the “Manitee running for
President” DA and an Aff that convinced me I could still use my ballot to take a stand
against imperialism even though his case had been thoroughly shredded by multiple Ts.
So feel free to run crazy positions in front of me, and don’t blow your opponents off if
they do.
Conversely, I have yet to vote on potential abuse or on Dispo CPs bad because they force
you to debate multiple worlds. That doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of buying either. It
just means that if you want to win on either of those positions (or any number of other
cliché arguments), you’ll have to run something other than the standard theory blocks.
Mavity, Joey
Azusa Pacific University
Background of the critic:
I have a lot of experience in parli debate.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
The set of all things possible in any particular round swamps the context of any particular
philosophy. Since my philosophy is not a stagnant object to be grasped and tamed, I'll do
my best to highlight my particular oddities. As a quick overview:
1) Establish and defend a criterion for the round. Good criterions make for good fact
debates. Bad criterions make for bad policy debates. Without telling me how I should
view the round, how can you expect my ballot
2) Establish and defend your interpretation of how arguments interact. Arguments about
how to weigh impacts against each other should be presented early and often. The
rebuttal speeches should not be the first time I hear arguments about how to weigh.
3) Pick the arguments that matter and win them. This means you have to take risks. But
taking risks and going for an argument is far less risky than trying to go for everything
and failing.
109