here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Drutman, Paul
University of Puget Sound
Background of the critic:
4 years High School
4 year college @ UW
currently coach at UPS
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Absent a specific framework, I will defer to a policymaker paradigm. I am not really sure
how to evaluate fact debates, so it is probably best to run a policy or some form of an
advocacy in front of me.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Go as fast as you’d like. I typically enjoy a faster rate of delivery, but by no means
expect every debater to do so .I do not believe that spreading is a substitute for wellwarranted
arguments, so go fast but just have warrants. Your speaker points will reflect
the quality of your arguments and strategic choices made in rounds, not verbal
presentation. All debaters start out at a 27 and either go up or down based on what
happens in the debate.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Case arguments are important if you are defending the status quo. Case is not important
if you are running a CP that claims to solve for the harms of the 1AC, Duh.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I enjoy a good critical debate, but there is probably nothing worse than a bad critical
debate (well maybe a fact round of any sort). If you are going to run a kritique, you
should probably have a pretty good knowledge of the position. Pulling up your old cap
bad backfiles will generally not do the trick. I like critical positions with explicit
frameworks, saying that fiat is illusory is not enough. I prefer critical positions with
narrow and specific alternatives, this doesn’t mean that I will automatically drop you if
you say “reject the aff” or something along these lines. I’ve read a decent amount of
critical literature, but I expect you to be able to explain the arguments as opposed to
simply name-dropping Foucault or Deleuze.
55