here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Being from a predominantly policy debate background, I am certainly able to view the
round as a policy-maker. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but if you say something
that is just plain out-and-out incorrect, I can't vote on that argument. In a policy case,
harms, plan, solvency are important to me. I HATE fact interpretations of the resolution. I
am fine with value interpretations, but make sure your criterion is clear. I typically don't
vote on topicality unless the abuse is proven, and while you don't have to run the
argument you know the aff is going to link out of, you do need to give me what the
specific argument you can't run is. I don't ever vote on potential abuse. Unless you tell
me otherwise, I evaluate the round looking at procedurals first, kritiks next, and finally
post-fiat implications. I really, really, really dislike theory (PICs good/bad, severance
perms illegit/legit, etc.). I especially hate theory when it's importance isn't explained and
it's spoken at 200 words per minute. If your theory argument is really important to you,
spend some time explaining it's implication on the round and on the argument. I have yet
in my years of judging voted on theory.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I am a flow judge. Speed is really not a problem for me, so I don't really care if you look
at me while talking or are able to use flowery rhetoric to prove your point. Be clear and
concise and smart. Prove your point using examples from reality, don't just assume you
can make a claim and then it must be true because you said it. I like teams that can be
smart, make great argumentation and can be funny/witty while doing it. For the most
part, I see myself as the part of the debate equation that makes it possible for you to do
what you love, so while I will like it if you adapt to me, really, I will adapt to you
presenting the arguments in your style too.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Just taking out solvency usually don't mean the neg wins for me. Counter-plans don't
have to mutually exclusive as long as they compete on the net-benefit level. All disads
must link. I don't know what else to say about this stuff. On case args are good, but
typically not enough for me, it's good to have some off-case offense too.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Here's my answer to this directly from my debateresults.com judging philosophy:
KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE/ACTIVISM: I like kritiks that are agued well.
Unfortunately, many times kritik arguments become unruly and vague; if you can keep it
clean and tangible I very much enjoy the philosophical aspect inherent in many of the K
debates. You do need to make it clear, however, what you are trying to accomplish with
your criticism/activist stance. Why are you arguing this position as opposed to others
There should be a good reason; otherwise you’re just speaking meaningless words.
Something you should know, though, is that I feel that a judge can bring their own
knowledge and study of a subject into the round when the position is asking them to look
at identity or their own consumptive practices. If you ask me to look at myself and how I
159