here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I believe that the government team has free reign to define the resolution. However, the
link and analysis used to get to the specific definitions is vital. Hence, “canned” cases are
fine—as long as the government fully justifies, through argumentation how the case fits.
The Prime Minister constructive must fulfill all stock issues of the given resolution. I
will vote on resolutionality, but only if the opposition brings up and wins that position.
Therefore, if the resolution is a value, please do not run a plan, etc. If you aren’t sure if
you are resolutional or not, spend time on resolutional analysis to prove to me that you
are.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Opposition/Government Game Positions:
I do not particularly like topical counter plans, but I will vote on them if they win the
round. On counter plans, you must prove to be competitive, mutually exclusive, and
comparatively advantageous to win.
Counter warrants are fabulous opposition arguments, and if run properly can win you the
round easily. Value objections are essential to defeat a government’s value and criterion
in value rounds.
I absolutely love meta-debate (debate about debate)! Run topicality, kritiks, off-case
positions, etc. (when warranted) and you will make me happy! I will vote on T, K, RVIs,
etc. as long as you show me how it wins the round As an aside, I do not like language
kritiks, but I will vote on them if you proved compelling enough impact to them.
Any additional comments:
Overall, my strength is argumentation and theory; my weakness is current events. I
prefer not to disclose in round, but would be happy to discuss rounds after my ballot is
turned in. I see debate as a game, and rhetorical impacts tend to be more persuasive to
me than "real world" impacts. However, I will do my best to listen to both sides and
weigh things the way you, the debaters tell me to. Good luck and HAVE FUN!
173