here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

objecting to). This does not meant that I’m going to be likely to forgive outright lies or
dropped arguments.
If you have other questions feel free to ask. I am very open and will be willing to engage
in a conversation before the round.
Buescher, Derek
University of Puget Sound
Background of the critic:
Parli Rounds judged this year: '1'
Non-parli rounds judged this year: '0'
Years judging debate: '15'
Years debated: '6'
School debated at: 'Whitman'
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Approach to Deciding: '--i tend to default to policy-maker framework in the absence of
articulate framework debates. i will thus hopefully with debaters guidance weigh
impacts and solvency (net-ben). --in the case of framework debates (i.e. the first
scenario below on nuke war/racism) i need the debaters to do some work on how these
issues are/are not comparable. work to explain the contingencies of your own
argumentations. speaking in absolutes is *never* strong argumentation. :) -- i want
arguments to be complete--claim evidence warrant in simplistic terms.'
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Presentation Preferences: '--i tend to flow and don t see much of what the debaters do -­
either focus or middle-ground. i don t like an overwhelming number of positions
especially since they tend to be poorly developed. --i think the lor should do both point
23