here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

that debaters want to create in their cases. if you can defend it, you can do it! i’ll try to
avoid the inspirational aphorisms for the rest of this philosophy
Disadvantage Arguments: a disadvantage is an argument, which is why it is good. i prefer
to hear disads that are responsive in some way to the government case, this means that
the d/a should have an articulated link. generally, impacts are where the d/a debate end
up. the impact debate can play out in a multitude of ways, depending on the offense that
the government is using to answer your d/a. impact turns, link turns, etc. its not like any
of that is really a revelation. i have a fairly traditional understanding of d/a’s. offense is
what wins d/a’s. i don’t think that i have ever seen terminal defense that was enough to
straight outweigh a d/a, though a good case should probably have an outweigh story that
the mg could tell. d/a’s are also good places to perform impact calc.
Counterplan Arguments: counterplans: i generally dislike conditional strategies. though i
haven’t really seen any arguments about conditional strategies, so i don’t really know
how the theory debate plays out in a parli specific context. sleazy counterplans are
sleazy. delay, consult, 90, veto, exclude something ridiculous. many strategies are sleazy.
if you can win a theory debate about why your sleaze is ok, and not really sleaze at all,
then its pretty easy to win counterplan debates. theory is a pretty sweet game that not
many really spend the time trying to master . . . but it lets you do so many things . . . SO
MANY!
Kritik Arguments: so this is really my bread and butter. i could easily survive on a k diet
and be completely satisfied. most don’t really feel like that. so, i don’t really ask it. if
you want to be a successful k debater, i find that the framework is the most important
issue. what is fiat how does fiat function what is the role of the critic how should i
understand the ballot what happens in the world because of the beliefs we hold what
kind of power does language have how should the round be evaluated i think that these
are all interesting questions, and a good k debate may or may not answer some or all of
them.
T and Theory Arguments: like everything else in my philosophy, its about what you can
justify and win. if you can justify and win that topicality is about competing
interpretations, and yours is better, and your def. excludes the government case, i guess it
wasn’t so straight up topical. if the government team can win that their expansive
definition is good for some reason, i guess that “squirrel” case was pretty straight up
topical. should debates be about competing interps or abuse is extra topicality a voting
issue are “spec” arguments sweet, do they lead to overspecification, does yours provide
a brightline, or should gov teams overspecify so many questions, so few answers
engraved on stone tablets. i also enjoyed well articulate offense on topicality.
Approach to Deciding: i generally evaluate the impacts for the opposition versus the
impacts for the proposition. i prefer for the debaters in a round to provide explicit
weighing mechanisms that tell me exactly how to weigh the impacts. i will always default
to weighing mechanisms provided for me by the debaters in a round.
30