here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

etter, more fun, and more educational experience. Yes, I coach at Washburn, but so do
two other coaches and my debaters enjoy myriad strategies in winning rounds, some of
which I love and several of which I abhor. In other words, just because you've seen my
cherubs run it in a round, don't assume that whatever style you saw is something that I
will enjoy. Kritiks: I do not want to see Kritiks in my rounds. I think that, while they may
be, theoretically, a valid form of argumentation, they are typically poorly constructed and
executed. Please don’t run these unless there is an instance of abusive language used in
the round.
Any additional comments:
• I do not want to see Topicality run in my rounds, as it is often either a time suck or a
waste of time. Unless there is a BLATANT abuse of the resolution by the Gov., I do not
want to see Topicality. There is very little expectation of predictability in NPDA debate,
by its very nature, and often, Opp. teams will simply run most of the strats they prepped
anyway. In short, focus on the substance of the issues and not on the technicalities,
please. And for the record, going suicide-T in front of me will likely turn in to just that:
suicide (see my comment about performance styles and shovels above...) • I will vote for
counter plans but WILL NOT buy CPs that are Topical. Debaters on the Gov. cannot
simply say “It’s Topical!” and I’ll vote against it; I need an explanation about the
effects/implications of the Opp. running a Topical CP. But if these arguments are present,
I will likely vote an Opp. team down for running a Topical CP.
See, Lindsay
Patrick Henry College
Background of the critic:
I competed in NDPA for 4 years (Patrick Henry College). Last year I coached parli; this
year I am the assistant coach for PHC’s moot court team. My academic background is in
political theory/law.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Overall, I approach judging from a policymaker standpoint and will usually defer to that
approach unless you lay out a clear, alternate framework that is fair to both teams (yet
also plays to your side’s strengths). I find policy rounds usually have better
151