here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

ushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli
case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are
constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to very much research. Disadvantages,
solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government
does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical.
Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political
philosophy. Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail
just because someone happens to not respond to them. While I attempt to minimize
intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not
become true just because it might be dropped. I think your word is your bond. If you say
it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true. If you are not quite certain, it is
preferable to frame a claim in that manner. The prohibition on reading evidence in a
round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may
advance your arguments.
I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of
debate I prefer to hear. If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as
such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such. Additionally, I do not
feel that there is only one way to debate. As such, I will not try to implement unwritten
rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo. They certainly
should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not. I think the
resolution is key to the debate.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . . I
dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than
engaging case straight up. I will try to make the decision based the content of the
arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points. It is not uncommon
for me to give low point wins. Strong speakers are capable of logical errors that can sink
their case.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Any additional comments:
Having said that I do have some a priori biases. Since I believe the resolution is what is
being debated, that has implications on counter plans. My a priori belief is that they
144