here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

There is a need to strike logical, structured argument along with persuasive abilities.
Many people come into parli with a policy background, which is fine – what separates
the top parli debaters is their ability to adapt to whatever kind of audience they have.
That said, as far as delivery is concerned, I generally prefer a moderate speed. I'll give
you clear non-verbal cues if I'm not happy.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
If put into a policymaker paradigm, then of course, I weigh DA's and solvency takeouts
against case. That said, debaters often overlook attacking case, which is a pity, since
many cases are built on faulty warrants and claims. Joelle Purcell from WKY was one of
the best in terms of case-side argumentation, and she'd be a great model for many people
to consider.
As far as topicality is concerned - I don't need a huge long standards/abuse block. Simply
tell me what the violation is, why it's a violation, and then move on. I can't say I'm a huge
fan of suicide T.
Not all spec arguments are time sucks...if the spec is worthwhile, I'll vote there. Just
make sure you tell me why the spec matters.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I do have concerns in terms of certain kinds of performative debate that privilege
narrative. As a scholar of narrative, I'm quite aware of the power of testimony, and its
argumentative privilege. So, I'm probably not your best judge if performative is your
style of debate.
As far as kritiks are concerned: I'll listen,and occasionally vote on the K, but for the most
part, I'd rather hear specific case-side argumentation and disadvantages if possible.
There’s a difference between good kritiks and bad ones -- if it's really a DA, call it that
instead of a K. That said, I do want you to tell me whether the K is pre or post-fiat and
where the abuse can be found.
Any additional comments:
Just because I use the sketchpad doesn't mean (to use the Ft. Hays term) I have to be
“flogocentric.” I use the flow as a guide to help me remember; that doesn’t mean you’ll
necessarily drop the round if you miss the 8th point off the third subpoint on the impact
scenario. What it does mean is that I look to the reasonability of both positions before
determining whether that matters. “Lump and dump” done well is just fine with me. If
you can cover everything by grouping, go for it.
54