here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

kicked by the negative. I rarely buy RVIs unless very clearly articulated and warranted in
the MG and gone for in the PMR.
Disadvantages:
I am fine with whatever disadvantage you want to run, but there are some qualifications. I
don’t like all of your disadvantages ending in nuclear winter. Make the impacts realistic,
or at least have one more realistic impact and maybe one nuclear impact/lots of death
impact. If you are running catastrophic impact, explain the internal link story very clearly
and have real warrants. I enjoy listening to environmental impacts, but not global
warming. Too often people screw up the global warming debate, so if you choose to run
global warming, have a really good scenario. For the government, put offense on
disadvantages. I like disadvantages on counterplans.
Counterplans:
Counterplans are cool. For me, you can run any type of counterplan, PICs, delay, consult,
topical or whatever. At the same time, I will listen to arguments against those types of
counterplans. I don’t usually view arguments like “consult bad” as a reason to reject the
team, but more often a reason to reject the position. If you want me reject a team on
“consult bad,” then you need to make it a clear voter in the PMR.
Kritiks:
I really don’t like kritiks. I think parliamentary debate is the worst possible forum for
discussing critical ideas. I will listen to Kritiks but in order to win on a K you need to
have a legitimate alternative, none of the wanky reject, or use your ballot-as-a-tool
alternatives. I prefer counterplan-type alternatives. I think the kritik functions on two
levels, an alternative to plan and a solvency take out/turn. If you are going for the K as a
solvency turn be very explicit and go for it in the PMR. I will listen to language kritiks,
but if the mistake was accidental, I probably will not vote on it. If it is a systemic use of
bad language, then the K becomes more legitimate and the alternative of reject actually
makes sense.
Olson, Tiffany
Wheaton College
Background of the critic:
I'm relatively new to parli and the field of debate. I have four years of college I.E.
experience and 10 years of I.E. coaching experience. During the last few years, however,
that focus has shifted to Parli. **I tend to look for simple but strong arguments, clarity
and strong speaking. Please be clear and organized in your flow. It’s better for both of us
if I don’t have to search for what argument I think you might be addressing. **I am
willing to listen to most claims, but it is the debater’s job to clarify why something is or is
not a voting issue and to do an effective job of weighing the round. **I also appreciate
rebuttals that actually give me clear voting issues under your criteria and reasons why I
should vote for your team. **Feel free to run topicality/counterplans/kritiks as long as
127