here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I react to criticism presented without an alternative based upon how the arguements made
by the debaters in the round play out. I am willing to vote for/against "postmodern",
"performabce" and "framework" arguments of criticism based on the arguments made in
the round. Kritiks are as effective a way to win my ballot as any other.
Any additional comments:
OLeary, Kevin
Washburn University
Background of the critic:
Started in 1982.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Who said I'm a critic Who said I'm making a decision So I guess it depends.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Little other than be yourself and play nice with others.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Usually doesn't hurt, often helps.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Very.
Any additional comments:
Interpret the resolution as you like—metaphor, satire, claim of fact, claim of value, claim
of policy, etc. I don’t believe that one way of interpretation is necessarily better or worse
than others. Whatever you do: (a) have a sensible explanation of how your interpretation
“links” to the resolution, (b) have a sensible explanation of what the ground is for both
sides in the debate under your interpretation (e.g., What does the opposition have to do to
negate your case). None of this precludes another viable interpretation, the loss of some
125