here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Critiques: Again, I prefer policy debate. However, when on the government, your plan
advantages can be critical, just as a net benefit to a counterplan can be critical. Either
way, you still had a policy. I have voted for many critiques, but I am not a hack. I think
critiques should have realistic alternatives. Some critiques make little sense to me.
Maybe this helps. When my team ran Baudrillard in policy debate on the aff and neg all
year, here was my philosophy:
I would not vote for my own team this year,
But I hope you do.
I would not vote for our affirmative,
Whatever it is.
I would not vote for our negative arguments,
Because I don’t really get them.
I do not understand why line-by-line is bad,
So I guess I am part of the problem.
My team has used an extra strike just for me,
Since they cannot risk me accidentally judging them.
Indeed, I say this with love in my heart,
But I would not vote for my own team this year.
Fiat for critiques:
Both teams can argue that their advocacy is a good thing. That essentially means the
government defends their plan as U.S. government action. Arguing a critique and saying
that fiat is illusory doesn’t change the fact that government teams should still get the
chance to access their impacts.
70