here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

the attack would soon have to be decided, a moment to know the blood of the gambler in
oneself. –Norman Mailer, The Armies of the Night
The nitty-gritty:
Since you are reading this, it probably means that I’ll be the critic in your next round.
Hopefully, you weren’t too confused by the introduction…but if you were, what follows
should clarify any questions that you may have. If not, feel free to ask me anything you
need to know before the round starts. First, a word about the activity we are engaging in.
In my opinion, debate is much more than “just a game.” In round we should be
addressing real world issues in a fairly serious manner, in order to prepare ourselves for
the challenge of being an informed and active citizen in the world. At the same time,
debate is a game that we choose to play and as such we should approach the activity with
a good natured attitude. Therefore, I expect both teams to treat each other with civility
and respect. Of equal importance, I want you to be having a good time in the round. That
being said, lets jump to the standard issues that y’all want to know about.
Topicality: I’ve been known to vote on topicality, but frankly I hate to do it. I hate to do it
because the only time I really vote on T is when the government team has run a case that
has no link to the resolution. So Gov’s, run a case that has a fairly clear link to the
resolution and take the time to make sure I get the link. Opp’s if you are going to run
topicality, run it like you mean it and put out a counter definition (telling me why it is a
better def.), standards, and impacts. Additionally, if the gov has a pretty clear link to the
res, I am unlikely to vote on T, so you might want to spend your time elsewhere.
Res of Fact, Value, and Policy: In my mind there is a great degree of overlap between
these areas. For example, I feel the best way for a government team to approach a “res of
fact” is tell me whether or not this “fact” is good or bad, and then run a policy that makes
the “fact” better. For example, if the resolution were “America is going to pot,” I feel the
best way to approach this would be to state that the resolution points to the fact that
millions of Americans have voted for patient access to medicinal marijuana yet the
USFG’s policy toward the prohibition of marijuana is contradictory to democracy/sound
medical policy and propose a policy that would best address the problems of prohibition,
rather than just give me a laundry list of reasons why “America is going to pot.”
Kritiks: Don’t be afraid to run one in front of me, I am more than willing to listen and
vote on them. However, kritiks are dangerous b/c they can come back and bite you. I
appreciate clear links to the both the rhetoric used and argumentative advocacies as well
as an alternative with at least an explanation of how it will alter mindsets…sign your
ballot as an act of resistance isn’t going to cut it.
DA’s: Love’em….the key is making sure that the DA’s link solidly to case and are well
impacted both in the constructives and the rebuttal. Opp’s can win with just DA’s but it is
probably best to present both DA’s and a C/P to make sure you capture solvency.
40