here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have on case argumentation in
their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more
sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their
entire case argumentation after the PMC.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few
times this year, but to be honest, it seems several times I saw them used this year they
were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon.
Any additional comments:
1. I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote.
2. If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fineif
not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I
understand your argument.
3. I prefer nontopical counterplans
4. One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give
warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is
better.
17