here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Case Arguments: 'Values imply actions. Run a policy if you d like or use examples and
analogies to support your value claim. Opp teams should still have offense on value
propositions. Fact resolutions can be handled with examples and analogies by both
teams. Plans or counterplans should be presented during time the other team can ask
questions. I m open to alternative case constructions. I like reasonable impacts. If
nuclear war is a "reasonable" possibility then its fine as an impact. I don t like impacts
that are "Increased Happiness." What am I suppose to do with that I also don t like
when debaters explode impacts for the sake of having large impacts. I don t think I have
or ever would vote on Inherency. If plan makes the world better I ll probably vote for it
with or without inherency. I m pretty open-minded about case construction. Do what
works best for you. Traditional structures work well but if you ve got something better
try it.'
Disadvantage Arguments: 'I see impacts as a function of possibility times magnitude.
Sure I m weighing the impacts for my judgment but poor link stories/uniqueness will
lessen the impact. A strong disad should be a strong causal argument with all its
components. Don t skimp on any part of your disads; its all important. Answers to
disads should exploit the weakness of any part of the disad. Turns are good too.'
Counterplan Arguments: 'The counterplan should be a distinct advocacy. Delays
consultations PICS don t tend to create distinct advocacy in most rounds I ve seen. If
you think you can do it better go for it. Topical C/Ps are ok with me (and encouraged).
A perm is whatever the Gov says it is. Don t assume anything. Explain everything.
Make POIs if the Gov isn t being clear. I haven t seen a conditional C/P yet so I m open
to it.'
Kritik Arguments: 'I react poorly to K s without alternatives. Post-modernism is ok with
me. Word K s are ok. Performance is ok as long as it stays in the room and offers viable
ways for the opposing team to address it. Framework arguments are important to me as
most teams mess this part up the most.'
T and Theory Arguments: 'T is typically a waste of time in front of me. I think teams
should adapt rather than run procedurals unless the Gov is clearly abusive. Opp needs to
prove the Gov interpretation is bad. Extra T is to sever advantages but not a voting issue
for me typically. I don t tend to like SPEC arguments. Vagueness is warranted if the gov
shifts.'
115