here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Disadvantage Arguments: Big DA's with minimal links are not as persuasive as DA's
with solid links, but I will often vote on risk if there is no offense against the DA. The
DA's link and internal link analysis is most important to me, followed by impacts and
then uniqueness. I will vote on any kind of DA as long as it is warrented well, although
politics DA debate can become very muddled. When answering DA's, I have voted on
defense before, but I strongly, strongly prefer offensive answers.
Counterplan Arguments: I will vote for any type of counterplan as long as, when
challanged, the opp team wins the theory debate. Perms can be a test or an advocacy, but
I like perm (and CP) texts to be clear and stated sooner, rather than later. I will only vote
on CP theory if it has clear voters. Otherwise, I will jsut reject the position.
Kritik Arguments: I do not vote for kritiks that do not have alternatives. Alternatives and
alternative solvency are very important to me in a kritik debate. Framework arguments
are also important. I will vote for any type of kritik, as long as the team wins it. Again, I
prefer argumetns with good analysis. However, on language kritiks, I have a slightly
higher threshold unless what another team said is blatantly offensive or if the K is
dropped.
T and Theory Arguments: I will vote for procedurals, although they are not my favorite
argument. On topicality, I think abuse voters are the strongest, but I will vote for
competing interpretations if it is a good argument. I place a lot of importance on the
standards debate when a topicality is run. Overall, I think topicality can be a strategic
argument, even if the government is pretty straight up. I like spec/vagueness arguments,
although I think enforcement specification is one of the weakest spec arguments, as is
funding specification (usually run funding spec with some other arument to prove the
abuse). I think it's pretty hard to win these types of arguments if there isn't some type of
articulated abuse though.
Approach to Deciding: I focus on comparison. I will make my decision based on what
each team tells me to vote on, otherwise I default to evaluating the round through net
benefits (see above for how I weigh impacts). The only issue I think I would have
difficulty voting against is reproductive rights. I would try to judge argumetns against
reproductive rights fairly, but it would be more difficult for me.
Presentation Preferences: In terms of speaking style, I leave it up to the teams to set the
speed/tone of the round. I don't mind fast rounds with a lot of positions, but I do feel that
by the end, debaters should try to narrow down to key issues, or the round can become a
huge mess. I allow teams a few seconds to begin or wrap up seeches, as long as it is not a
ridiculous amount of time. I'll let you know if you're reaching that point. I don't listen to
new arguments in LORs/PMRs, but it's a good idea to make them anyway in case I miss
one or might not initially see the argument as new. New positions in the MG and MO are
fine, but running new argumetns in the MO is just risky because the PMR gets to answer
them.
135