here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I focus on comparison, stock issues, proof of resolution and rhetorical effectiveness
relative to the arguments made in the round as to how any of these are to function in my
decisionmaking. I look to the criteria/criterion first for a framework or understanding
of how to view the arguments made. Tell me where things weigh and why they are
weighed there in the round. For reference, my default theory setting for theoretical
weighing order is as follows (from firstconsdiered to lastconsidered): 1) Prefiat,
preprocedural implications (criticsm, rhetoric, etc. as argued in the round.) 2) Prefiat
procedural implications (topicality, etc. as argued in the round.) 3) Fiatlevel procedurals
(vagueness, specification, etc. as argued in the round.) 4) Postfiat, nonprocedural
implications (solvency, advantages/disadvantages, competition from CP, etc. as argued
inthe round.) Please note that this is only what I hold as a general understanding of
where things weigh. If you do not tell me where/how things weigh, I may or may not
default to my personal understanding of theory, which I hate doing as I consider it an act
of intervention. Vaguelyworded prompts as to where/why I weigh a point on the flow
will be ultimately given my discretion as to how I consider them. I hate doing this, but
when you simply say "___ is an independant voter" I don't know what the hell that
means.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I will start time when you start talking. If an unneccessarily long time passes between
speeched (as determined by my discretion) I will prompt you to begin and start time
when you start talking. If you do not start talking soon enough for me, I will see if the
other debaters are ready and start time. I will stop flowing arguments if they begin
after time expires you may finish your pointm, provided that it doesn't take longer than 5
seconds or so. After you finish, I will tell all the debaters exactly what made it onto my
flow from the end of a speech as neccessary.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
I do my best to vote for/against any type of case based upon the arguments made in the
round. It is legal to present a plan/Cp in the last minute of a constructive, if not
especially nice or always strategically beneficial to a team. I "like" types of
cases/impacts functionally to the point at which they are/aren't able to weigh enough
under the argued criteria/criterion to merrit the ballot. I don't think that being a "huge"
impact is neccessarily exlusive of being a "realistic" one. Usually it's a matter of how
much time one spends arguing specific warrants and scenarios. Inherrency is as
important to a gov. policy case as it functions based on arguments made in the round.
While I sincerely try not to invest my own opinions of debate into the round, it should be
noted that I am most deeply able to enagage in debate theory when it is policyoriented. I
don't mind counterintuitive arguments, as I think they are a matter for argument to make
them make intuitive sense. Run what YOU are bets able to argue, as I hope this is as
significant a factor in how I vote as how I learned debate.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
124