here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

kitchen sink tactic, but as a strategy to fit in more warrants, more reasoning, more
examples, more analysis—not as a chaotic list of blanket assertions.) I do make it a point
to reward wit (which is sadly now becoming a lost art in the world of parliamentary
debate.) If you ramp up the speed and I cannot understand you, my pen will be resting
oh-so-nicely on my flow sheet. Talk rapidly, but…articulate, please.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
On-case argumentation is key, in my opinion. If it wasn’t….then why are we even
bothering with the debate in the first place The Government must clearly construct and
rationalize their significance (including definitions), harms scenario, inherency, plan text,
solvency, and advantages. The Opposition should spend some time on-case, with at the
very least some sort of solvency press or refuting the impacts of the advantages. I don’t
mind an Opposition team going for a “plan vagueness” position, but show me where the
flaws are in the plan text and why the Government dropped the ball in explaining
themselves. If an opposition team places a few choice turns on-case, then I expect the
Government team to address them thoroughly.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I am open to critical styles of debating, specifically if there is an egregious element to
either the topic itself or the rhetoric in the round. Critical positions must be clearly
constructed in terms of significance and impacts (as well as explaining on how I should
approach it when weighing the other stock issues in the round.) I have never seen a
performance in a debate before and thus I cannot speak to my openness to it.
Any additional comments:
I’m a flow judge.
Give me clear voters in the rebuttals (instead of a rehash of the entire debate.)
Enjoy the rounds and try to learn something.
Please be civil to one another.
4