here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

ecause you think it'll make me happy, chances are you're not going to
debate well and it's going to be a bad round. If you know you can win
with a particular argument/style, don't worry about whether it'll make
me happy. Good debates make me happy.
DEBATE STYLE: I vastly prefer quality to quantity in argumentation. If
you can provide either empirical examples or logical justifications
for your arguments I will love you and probably vote for you. Nothing
is more important to me than intelligent arguments. I think this
activity is being abused by people who prefer to spread their
opponents than make quality intelligent arguments. I'm not against
speed by any means, but I will always value strong, logical arguments
over a flood of shallow assertions.
SPEED: I was never a speed debater, but rarely had any problem hitting
the fastest folks in the activity. I'll tell you if you're too fast
for me. Also, see my above point about quality of argumentation. I
will vote on (and often agree with) intelligent speed critiques, but
those seem to be rare.
SPECIFIC POSITIONS:
1. On procedural / theory issues, I have almost no set views and am
happy to let you debate it out about what should/shouldn't be allowed
in a debate. I believe in rejecting the argument, not the team.
2. Meta issues: I like competitive equity best, but I don't think you
need proven abuse and will vote on competing interps. Education will
almost never be a voter for me.
3. Critiques: I see them as just another argument – pre/post fiat
doesn't make sense to me. Generic critiques (of the state, of
capitalism) are just fine, but I often find them shallow and easily
answered. If your utopian critique lacks a solvency mechanism, that's
a problem. I don't understand post-modernism, so Foucault and Derrida
will be hard-pressed to get my ballot.
4. Crazy arguments: I love big-hitting positions that lead to nuclear
war and extinction, but I expect you to do it well. Saying "caribou
are key to biodiversity which prevents extinction" is not an argument.
Give me internal links and fleshed-out scenarios that make sense, and
you can be as crazy as you want. Real radical stuff (wipeout, spark)
tend be poor arguments, but can be effective if people aren't
prepared.
5. Alternative Discourse (performance, PMC critiques of fiat, etc):
simply put I tend to not understand its role in debate. For that
142