here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I prefer depth over breadth of argumentation. I have grown weary of unwarranted, unevidenced
claims. The “capitalism is evil, the state is evil, DUH!” lines of argumentation
that often turn up in kritik debates are a key offender. I may agree with your argument,
but making sweeping generalizations and claims popular with many in the community
doesn’t relieve you of the burden of proof.
I prefer that questions of theory be resolved during the round. My default is to view
procedurals as questions of competing interpretations. Demonstrating in-round abuse will
often lower my threshold for voting on a procedural/theoretical objection but isn’t
necessary to win my ballot. My personal views on theory tend to be “liberal,” meaning
permissive. If you think something is unfair, point it out and explain why I should
consider it in my decision. If you don’t, chances are high that I’ll let it slide.
Rebuttals should weigh competing arguments/positions and then impact them to the
ballot. Put differently, I want you to tell me why you’re winning a specific portion of the
flow and why controlling that portion of the flow wins you the debate. As a corollary, I
greatly appreciate strategic issue selection. You don’t need to win every argument; you
need to win a combination of arguments that make a persuasive case for your side. Put
differently, don’t go for everything. Take a few risks, have the discipline to jettison the
positions you don’t need, and then go for broke.
I don’t listen to new arguments in rebuttals, but call points of order to be on the safe side.
Have fun, learn something, and don’t prevent others from doing the same.
West, Tim
Hired
Background of the critic:
Debated for four years for Texas Tech 2003-2007; volunteer coach with Texas Tech
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I believe that debate is a game played by the debaters. My default role as a critic will be
to evaluate all argumentation that the debaters put on my flow unless I am instructed to
do otherwise. I strive to be as tabula rosa as I possibly can.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
188