here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

The debaters determine who gets my ballot. To the best of my ability I will not intervene
my own ideals into the debate. I will evaluate the positions advocated in the round solely
as they are presented. I do believe some parli resolutions support fact/value cases in
addition to policy. I believe fact and value cases provide a unique opportunity to have an
intelligent, interesting and educational debate and therefore, are just as legit as policy.
That being said, if an opposition team chose to run a “fact bad” position and the
affirmative did not counter in any way whatsoever, though it would pain my heart, I
would vote on the dropped “fact bad”. I take the same approach to topical counter-plans.
While I believe counter-plans should be non-topical, an opposition is free to run a topical
counter-plan and pray that divine intervention clouds the affirmative’s ability to point out
topical counter-plans still uphold the resolution, thus winning the ballot for the
affirmative. My point is, while I won’t throw out a position based on my own personal
beliefs, it is not hard for affirmative teams to throw out these two particular positions for
me.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I have yet to see a round I couldn’t flow however, I don’t recommend testing me. Speed
should be used to further build arguments and efficiently refute the flow, not to spread
unwarranted blips of pretend points and fluff. Arguments, which ultimately are the most
important facet of the round, should be presented in a clear, precise and structured
format. Signposting is a must. I don’t like to do your work for you and if I’m not sure
where you want your argument on the flow I will most likely not write it down or,
depending on how much Starbucks I’ve had that day, I will jot it down at the bottom of
my flow where I stick random, not linked arguments that I usually don’t vote on.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
The job of the affirmative is to prove the Resolution true. The opposition, in whatever
way they deem appropriate, should counter the affirmative advocacy.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Any style is fine as long as positions are explained in an easily understood manner.
Any additional comments:
Regardless of position (K’s, T’s, specs, etc.) I like good arguments. I dislike bad
arguments. If you have a good argument, run it. If you have a bad argument and nothing
else, run it anyway and hope the other team doesn’t realize how bad it is. In this way
debate is like a Chinese buffet; try a bit of everything until you find the one that tastes
like chicken. The easiest way to win my ballot: Don’t Suck.
167