here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I am open to both critical and performative styles of debating.
Any additional comments:
Humor and irony are always welcome and encouraged.
Carothers, Blake
University of Wyoming
Years debate: 1 year NDT/CEDA, 3 years NPDA, 3 years judging
I feel that the debate is for debaters to decide what should and should not be debated. The
resolution, to me, is a jumping off point for discussion. Teams should debate what they
want to debate I only ask that debaters justify their speech act.
I don’t think every resolution is a specific type. By this I am saying that just because the
resolution has the word is in it doesn’t necessarily means it’s a fact or that should means
a policy. That’s for the debaters to decide. I like policy type debate because it seems to be
the one style that has quantified impacts in the end (more times than the other two styles).
However I have voted for and enjoyed debates of fact and value. As debaters I only ask
that you justify and explain what and why you are doing what you are doing.
I like good, clear, warranted, and impacted debates. No argument is off limits. The best
thing you can do in front of me is debate well, meaning you understand your arguments,
warrant them sufficiently and come into the debate with a strategy that goes beyond the
PMC or LOC. I feel that too often teams worry too much about who their judge is and the
debate suffers for that. If you have any other specific questions feel free to ask me before
the round starts, especially if you feel that it would determine your strategy for the
debate.
27