here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I don't care how fast you go as long as you are clear and sign post.
I don't care what arguments you run as long as you tell me how they compete in the
round. I don't want to weigh procedurals vs. k's without you telling me how to weigh
them. This is also relevant to multiple procedural arguments and theory.
I want impacts either qualified or quantified. I should not have to articulate in my head
that nuclear war is greater than dehumanization or that dehumanization is a
gateway/internal link to greater harms.
Please feel free to ask me any other questions at the tournament.
Veden, Mary Lynn
University of Washington
Background of the critic:
Years competed—10
Years coached—9
Experience:
Coaching NPDA and IE’s at Lewis & Clark for six years. In first year of Ph.D. in
Communication at University of Washington, where I’ve coached for four years.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
So, with that…It is your round, and your education at stake. My job is to evaluate and
offer insight on the round that took place. I appreciate smart strategic thinking more than
the careless application of tactics that may contradict one another. Weigh things, don’t
just give me exploded impacts at the end of the round; make a persuasive comparison
within a clearly established framework, (how and why I should make those comparisons.)
If the framework is contested, that’s fine too. (Which means yes, I am OK with
procedurals and specification, as long as they are warranted and well-argued.)
179