here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Blasdel, Joe
McKendree University
Background of the critic:
I competed for McKendree in parliamentary debate and individual events for four years
(1996-2000). I have coached parliamentary debate at McKendree for the last five years
and Lincoln-Douglas for the last four years.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Generally, I make decisions from the perspective of a policymaker. I have a very high
threshold to vote on inherency or solvency mitigation with no accompanying offense. I
am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if forced to choose. I’m open to
fact and value/critical cases if they’re topical and establish clear burdens, but unlikely to
vote on a trichotomy-based procedural.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
While I don’t vote purely on presentational issues, I think being clear and organized
makes speeches easier to flow and understand. So it’s pretty important to my decision in
an indirect way. Speed doesn’t bother me as long as you’re clear and organized. I don’t
care if you dress ‘up,’ sit/stand, thank people, prompt your partner, etc.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
I don’t think the opposition is necessarily required to directly answer case. Unless the
opposition strategy captures case offense, though, it’s probably a bad idea to concede
case. Also, I am willing to vote opposition on unique case turns, particularly in
combination with good defensive arguments.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
14