here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

T and Theory Arguments: I would say my threshold for voting on T is very high,
however I like T debates so don’t hesitate to try if you want to, just make sure you win
your standards or I wont vote on T. I really like abuse arguments and am most likely to
vote for T on abuse, however I will listen to any voter presented.
Speed: I have on occasion been spread out of rounds (Texas Tech will verify this).
Please don’t go as fast as you can, but don’t be afraid of speaking swiftly. If you go to
fast I will yell “clear,” but rarely will it effect your speaker points or my impression of
the team in the round.
Presentation Preferences: I put very little emphasis behind the traditional quirks of our
activity. Dress, speed, thank you’s, etc make no difference to me. Have fun and please
don’t get angry at each other, were all here to compete, not to fight.
Wonnacott, Mark
McKendree University
Background of the critic:
I did Illinois policy for 4 years in highschool, between 1999 and 2003. To date myself, I
was involved with the kritik before the popularization of the framework debate. I then did
parlimentary debate for McKendree College between 2003 and 2007. I also did LD
debate between 2004 and 2007. I am now an assistant coach at McKendree University.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
This is a really open-ended area. I have no idea what to write about and so am basically
going to ramble. Because of the diversity of styles at the NPDA, I feel it is important to
say that I want to adjudicate the kind of round you want to have. I do see value in the
rhetorical 'persuade-offs', but, to be honest, i do not feel very comfortable adjudicating
them. If there is a difference of opinion about what kind of round the debaters feel they
should be having, that discussion should be made transparent. More concretely, I see
debate as a game of competing advocacies, and my ballot endorses the better advocacy.
What constitutes an advocacy, much less a better advocacy, is something the debaters
must discuss, unless they want my view that an advocacy is a course of action some actor
should take, and better means least disadvantageous. I tend to view ground as the
195