here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I’m open to it. Please note that I sometimes do not understand how to evaluate or
contextualize performative approaches. This isn’t to say I don’t appreciate the effort;
rather, I’d encourage those who wish to perform to propose some clear method of
evaluation.
Any additional comments:
On T, I accept either ground or truth-based standards. If an opp team argues the former, I
prefer to see two things- (1) a clear demonstration of the alleged ground loss and (2) a
brief argument as to why that ground should have been the opp’s. In other words, it’s not
enough, in my view to say “We lost x and y positions because of the gov’s nontopicality.”
I also want to hear “Positions x and y were legitimately ours to begin
because a and b.”
I do not require that CPs be non-topical.
Please contact me if you have any questions about my paradigm.
andrewswan@yahoo.com
Swift, Crystal-Lane
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
Background of the critic:
Director of Forensics
Louisiana State University
I coach NPDA, IPDA, L/D, and IEs/Former Assistant coach for Individual
Events/occasional parliamentary debate coach at Ball State University. I have judged
thirty rounds of parliamentary debate and ten rounds of Lincoln-Douglas this year. This
is my fifth year exclusively judging, and I also judged two years of novice and junior
171