here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

I have a policy and parliamentary debate background and would probably describe
myself as a neo-traditionalist judge for a couple of reasons:
The traditional side
· Dropped arguments are the easiest way to win/lose a round. But I need you to tell
me HOW THESE FUNCTIONS.
· Explain to me who is winning the round and why. I do not mind being told why
your team should win or the other team should lose. Rebuttals are critical times for you
to explain why I should vote for you: take me on a trip around the flow and write my
RFD for me. I don’t like going line by line on rebuttals, just go for where you are
winning and tell me how that functions against arguments you might be losing.
· You should POO. When you POO, tell me where it is on the flow and I will most
likely make a decision then and there, unless it doesn’t matter, then I will say under
consideration.
The not so traditional side
· I don’t buy Tricot arguments. Neg should be ready for any type of case… in front
of me, Aff is probably going to run policy. BUT, if value is run, there better be a
functioning application of that value.
· I like time sucks, kicks, critical Affs, but not so much on performative unless you
know what you are doing.
· Ks are cool. However, if your K is bogusly linked, I am going to be angry with
you. More often than not, I vote against K because Neg doesn’t tell me how it functions.
I will vote on fiat impacts way faster than most critique impacts, simply because I hate
“prefiat” impacts that only operate in the round and not out of round. IE – don’t run a pre
fiat native American language K if you can’t prove how it functions out of the fiat /
debate game world.
· I LOVE counter plan debate. A lot. It provides more clash, education and is realworld.
I HATE counter plan debate that is not mutually exclusive. Unlike most judges, I
treat MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY as a jurisdictional issue and WILL NOT VOTE for a
counter plan that is faux exclusive. Compeditiveness is not the same as exclusivity,
because on a functional level, I can do both a bad idea and a good idea at the same time.
In order for neg to win counterplan, there must be some structural reason why both
cannot be done at the same time: timeframe, differing agency, opposite directionality etc.
At the very least, Neg must prove attitudinal exclusivity of the two plans.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
43