here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

intellectual and affective level, by your critical advocacy (narrative or not). In this mode,
you always already invite me to interact from my perspective with your advocacy, and
that always already assumes the risk that my interaction and response may not be to your
benefit in winning the round.
You should also know that I get grumpy when a critique or procedural based on warrants
that assume language is important (because it constitutes reality) is cavalierly kicked in
favor of a games-paradigm strategy. I'm all for games (love them, in fact), but if you want
to me engage at a criticism level, it's best not to violate my trust in your intellectual
honesty or the intent of your critical advocacy (strategy and intellectual honesty,
incidentally, are not mutually exclusive in a games-paradigm). If any of this worries you
and you can't adapt, strike me.
That said, an adequately developed critique, for me, includes a relevant
philosophical/theoretical framework, a clear link story to the affirmative or resolution,
compelling impacts (terminal or not, depending on the critique) with a weighing
mechanism, a viable alternative, and warranted voting issues. Defending against a
critique in front of me, then, would include pressing these issues. My comments above
should also give you ideas about what might be considered in defending against a
critique.
Performance/narratives: I’ll evaluate performance qua performance (think Butler and
Conquergood for performance/performativity and Pollock for performative narrative). I’ll
consider the quality of the aesthetic (evocative/affective impact) of the
performance/narrative, how well the arguments are developed using that aesthetic, and
the critical advocacy impacts (not necessarily terminal, depending on the critical
argument). Again, you invite me to affectively interact with your advocacy in this mode,
so see my comments above about that risk and decide if you want to assume it. If all you
have prepped are crit/perf/narr positions to run and aren't enamored by the risk, strike me.
Any additional comments:
Politics: Again, I’m not tabula rasa—assume I understand how complex and vague
political processes are and be sure that informs your analysis and your answers to the
other team’s challenges to your scenarios. For me, politics stories need especially strong
link scenarios; in other words, my threshold is pretty high on these positions and if you're
blowing off answers that don't seem important, you're taking a big risk in front of me. I
also read, so lying is also not smart.
Procedurals: I love meta-debate; please be structured and support your claims (running or
defending against the position) with sound analysis, not just blipped assertions.
That's it. Ask if you need more specifics, and I'm happy to oblige.
66