here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
At a minimum, debaters should be able to respond to the case, illustrate how it interacts
with off-case argumentation, and (if gov) be able to uphold their advocacy. If the opp
wishes to go for a an off-case argument, please illustrate how the case interacts
(generates, begs, initiates, etc.) with the off-case, do not simply presume that I will do
that work for you.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I am very open to critical/performative styles of debating. But, rest assured, I have seen
this a lot, in forums that allow for a more developed and nuanced articulation of critical
arguments. This means please use critical theory wisely: show how the gov/opp
necessitates the critical argument, the interaction of debate with the critical theorist, and
how I should adjudicate the kritik/performance. If you are opposing a critical argument
using a policy/traditional framework, try a both/and approach with me: don't tell me that
this argument is simply bad, but instead tell me why its bad in this round, and the ways in
which it undercuts, obfuscates your advocacy...etc.
Any additional comments:
Harvey, Korry
Western Washington University
Background of the critic:
Overview: My background comes primarily from a policy making paradigm. A specific
plan often tends to offer the best focus for debate. However, I understand that not all
resolutions are translatable into “policy” language, and feel that the resolution should best
dictate the type of debate to be had. In those cases, the teams should clarify what
framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how it should be evaluated (a weighing
mechanism). I have no problem with critical debates and am willing to listen to any
framework the teams feel is appropriate for the debate. I think that debate is both an
educational exercise and a game—that’s what makes it fun.
76