here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

On procedurals, I don't tend to buy potential abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean you
shouldn't run it, just that you'd better be able to defend it. I have a lot of trouble voting for
criticisms without alternatives, but I will listen to reasons why I should.
Wilson, Andrew
Lewis & Clark College
Parli Rounds judged this year: '80+'
Years judging debate: 1
Years debated: 7
School debated at: 'Lewis and Clark College’
Case Arguments: I like well structures advantages with clear links and well articulated
Impacts. I am not a fan of Fact/Value cases, however I am willing to listen to whatever
you tell me. If you do run a plan, make sure to provide a clear plan text, solvency points,
and how you would like me to weigh the round. I appreciate clever cases as long as it is
arguably topical.
Disadvantage Arguments: I need clear link stories that are specific to the Gov plan.
Please give me warrants, facts, and a scenario for your position. I like very indepth and
specific scenarios as they make it easier for me to get to your inpacts. Impacts need to be
more than blips or reversal of harms. Give me Timeframe, magnitude, and propensity
arguments to make my decision easier. Of course, I really need D/A’s to stay consistent
throughout the round. If the position shifts or new links are explicated in later speaches, I
am more likely to give the PMR some slack.
Counterplan Arguments I believe these to be the best opp strategy if at all possible.
Make sure to provide me with well-warranted theory arguments out of the LOC shell to
ensure clarity during the round. I love listening to good PERM debates so gov teams
need not worry too much. I have no bias towards conditionality and I am willing to listen
to any sort of counter plan theory for either side.
Kritik Arguments: I considered myself to be a D/A, Counter plan, Topicality debater
when I debated, however I love to listen to Kritiks. I am looking for two things,
however. First, a K cannot just be a really non-unique D/A. You impacts must in some
way relate to the Government team case specifically. You should do this anyway if you
are running K’s, don’t just make them Generic. Second, I sometimes get confused on K
debates, especially positions I have not heard before. Be very careful to be clear and
comprehendible, especially when shelling out the K in the LOC.
Any pre-fiat debates: You must tell me how these arguments function within the
debate round. Do more than just say pre-fiat comes first. I need impacts and warrants in
order to evaluate pre-fiat arguments within the scope of the round.
194