here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

My background lends itself to a preference for policy debate, though I work
hard to let the debaters in the round frame the decision-making calculus. I’ve seen one
debate over a resolution of fact that I really enjoyed—it was a practice debate at a
summer coop. I can’t recall any debates over resolutions of value that I really enjoyed.
But don’t let this be discouraging; I know that it can all be very meaningful if done well.
I just don’t know how to do fact or value well; and I don’t think that many other people
do either. Competitors should debate in a way that is enjoyable to them. I will work very
hard to keep up with you and I will try very hard to keep the issue of speaker points
totally distinct from my personal likes and dislikes. In fact, it could turn out to be
especially impressive if you can make a resolution of fact or value enjoyable to me. Do
know that unless swayed otherwise, I will be weighing the impacts and timeframes at the
end of the round.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I prefer a quick debate with a lot of good arguments. Though I’m not sure I would
recommend “rapid fire.” For one thing, I’m not as sharp as I’d like to think I am. For
another thing, my handwriting is really awful—the faster I write the harder it is for me to
decipher afterwards. Finally, while I feel like “rapid fire” is a great way to introduce
evidence after making a claim and establishing a warrant in the policy debate world, the
standard of evidence usage in the parliamentary debate world is drastically different and
to me, just does not lend itself very well to “rapid fire.” Having said this, I’ve flowed
some very fast, impressive parliamentary debates. Distinguishing the very best speakers,
in my opinion, are the skills of word economy and timing. The best speakers incorporate
some speed with the ability to say more with less and know when to slow down to make a
point. Perhaps the best speakers utilize rapid fire without really drawing attention to it as
rapid fire. I don’t know…talk how you like to talk…if I don’t understand you, I’ll try to
give you some warning. Don’t feel obligated to talk fast either…talking fast for the sake
of talking fast and then leaving 4 minutes of speaking time up for grabs is not impressive
to me. At the same time, don’t feel obligated to use all of your time if you don’t need it.
One of the best IARs I ever gave as a competitor lasted about 45 seconds—I granted out
a double turn to beat a team I had no business beating (it was one of the lowest point wins
in the history of this activity). Above all else, slow down towards the end of the
rebuttals—be sure and help me write a good ballot (I need all the help I can get).
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
I guess it depends on the strategy of the negative...maybe I don't understand what is being
asked for here. If the negative has a good counterplan-disadvantage strategy, then "oncase"
argumentation would not seem to be as important than if the negative is defending
the status quo. Or even in the case of defending the status quo, if there are disadvantages
with really good uniqueness, link, and impact stories, I would think "on-case" debate is
not all that important aside from making time-frame and impact analysis. However, it
50