here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Decision-making: I will do my best to make my decision based on the arguments made in
round, but the more I’ve debated, coached, and read in general, the more I’ve realized the
idea of being tabula rosa is a myth (Locke abandoned the term tabula rosa for describing
the mind so I think it’s pretty ignorant of people to claim that as a paradigm given that all
the empiricists abandoned it as a view). I hated it when judges seemed biased against my
debating style, so I will do my best to try to judge your arguments based on the view of
debate they assume.
Importance of presentation/communication skills: If you want to go fast, you’re free to do
so. However, I think that most debaters try to go faster than they should. You’re probably
better dropping down a gear from top speed since your thoughts will be more collected
and your arguments more succinct. Stupid is stupid at any speed, so just sound smart.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation: I don’t have any requirements for this.
Just explain why whatever argument/strategy you’ve selected is the most important to the
debate.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I’m open to them, and ran them on
occasion. However, I think that they’re usually poorly done and don’t consider the
dynamics of the disputative nature of debate. Make sure you fully understand and can
articulate the thesis of your position. If you’re debating a critical position in front of me,
engaging the thesis of the position itself rather than making a slew of ‘wrong forum’ or
‘kritiks bad’ arguments is probably the better strategy.
Random other points: Unlike most judges when I debated, I won’t throw T out simply
because the MG says there is no in-round abuse. I’ll listen to the entire debate and really
like to see substantive impact analysis on the standards debate and relation to the voting
issues. Also, I like to see an impact calculus at the end of the LOR and PMR.
“The dude abides.” - Lebowski
113