here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Education: Degrees in Finance and Political Science.
Career: Financial analyst for a medium-sized banking concern in Montana.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Fundamentally, I’ll make my decision according to the criteria you give me in the round.
If you want to run a values debate or “res-o’fact” go for it—just be prepared to justify
your decision if the other team wants to challenge it. In terms of policy debate, I think of
myself as a policy maker. This is because I see policy debate as competition between the
plan and the status quo and/or a counter-plan—my job is to decide which option is better,
your job is to tell me what the implications of each option are, and (this is the important
part…) what “better” means. If you think I should do something else, convince me, but in
lieu of an argument on the matter, that’s my default position.
While I certainly attempt to avoid letting my personal beliefs and biases influence the
way I judge, I firmly believe that no one can ever be completely tabula rasa. I will not
consciously intervene in a round.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
No one speaks 1000 words per minute or takes tremendous gulps of air mid-syllable in
the real world. Since I presume that’s where you’ll eventually end up, now would be a
good time to start practicing for it. Speaking well and making good arguments are not
mutually exclusive, and in fact, communicating well bolsters an argument by improving
the credibility of the speaker.
That said, I won’t pick you up or drop you based on presentation by itself. I judge the
round on the flow. Naturally, if you are speaking in such a manner that I cannot flow you,
well, that’s a problem for your position because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
How much time and effort will be spent arguing on-case is purely a strategic choice that
the Op gets to make in the LOC. If Op believes it can win entirely off-case, go for it.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Critical debates are often poorly argued and messy; it’s not your fault, Parli is simply not
designed with sufficient speaking times and number of speeches for critical arguments to
fully develop (the rule against evidence in rounds is also problematic for kritiks as it
leads to somewhat wild generalizations on philosophical points). I’m not anti-kritik, but
please run it well and know what you’re talking about inside and out.
138