here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Stroup, Kristopher
Truman State University
Background of the critic:
1 year CEDA, 3 years NPDA, 3 years NFA-LD. 3 years debate coaching in grad school
(U. of Ohio), now a coach at Truman (3rd year).
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I'll flow. I won't make the naïve claim to be tab, but the debaters determine what makes it
onto the flow, and it's your job to tell me how the round gets evaluated. Anything else on
this form is just good-faith disclosure of the position I would take if we were chatting in a
bar about points of theory. I list it for transparency's sake, but will try to keep it to myself
and off the ballot unless you put it there.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
If I can't flow you (which means you have to be either wicked unclear or a level of
blazing fastness heretofore unknown to NPDA), I'll have a lot of trouble making coherent
sense out of your arguments.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
I tend to think the opp has to either garner a 100% solvency takeout, demonstrate 100%
status quo solvency/plan adoption, or have offense to win the debate. You pick which of
those is easier. I rarely find myself voting for completely defensive argumentation.
Where you stick it on the flow is up to you.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
If that's your thing, roll with it. In the interest of disclosure, I have to admit that I am
personally a fan of switch-sides debate where you do different stuff every round, and
tunnel-vision adoption of a single position on both sides every round seems antithetical to
that. That doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, and I've found myself doing that a lot this
year. My academic background tends toward the poststructuralist side of life, and I would
self-identify as a Foucaultian with some tinges of Marx and Deleuze around the edges.
I'm not sold that kritiks absolutely have to have alternatives all of the time, and floating
PICs seem a particularly dubious theoretical choice in that department. As with
everything else, it comes down to what you can defend, though.
168