here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Because I abhor judge intervention, tabula rasa is my ideal. I will vote based on the
arguments made in the round to the best of my ability, but I recognize that I can never be
a true “blank slate.” (For example, the team that ran “parents should abuse their children”
would tell you that I voted them down.)
While I believe that there are different kinds of claims, I do not believe that any given
resolution must be interpreted in the exact same way. Gov teams can run the type of case
they want, and Opp teams can argue against the Gov’s interpretation. Thus I will listen to
both “trichot good” and “trichot bad” arguments and vote based on the flow, in the same
way that I would vote on any other procedural in the round such as topicality.
If Opp teams want to run “stock-issue” arguments, that’s fine with me... but please do not
expect me to vote on them unless you use them as an offense (e.g., “E-spec”).
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I believe that debate is an inherently different activity than IEs. I am not nearly as
interested in hearing a “pretty speech” as I am in hearing argumentation. I won’t finish
the arguments for you, so it is your job to provide more than just assertions. Provide clear
links and internal links, give warrants for your claims, and weigh the impacts for me.
Weighing the impacts is especially important at the end of the round—show me why
you’ve won the debate.
To use a silly analogy, substantive arguments are the cake and good communication skills
are the icing. I hate icing by itself, but I love the icing when it’s on the cake.
157