here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

imagining could be made in a way I could vote for them include things like racism,
bigotry, or hate are good...so that's a big surprise.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Good vocal variation and presence in the round can make arguments easier to understand
and more persuasive. Eye contact and gestures are not important to me. I would rather
have teams focus on a few issues so that arguments can be developed well and compared
to one another, but if a team spreads with a bunch of positions for strategic reasons that's
fine. All that I ask is that at some point you make some choices instead of constantly
expanding the round. The LOR can make whatever strategic choices she wants. As long
as the positions the MO doesn't cover were initially covered in the LOC they can talk
about them again. However, I don't think the LOR should be making new arguments.
After a few seconds I would prompt them to begin, and a few seconds more I would start
time. If there are a lot of papers for everybody to get in order I would allow for a little
more time, but 1520 seconds is probably too much. I will listen to the end of an
argument if it finishes a second or three after the end of the speech time but 10 to 15
seconds is way too long. I will allow new arguments if the other team does not make a
point of order on it. I think a PMR can make arguments about which arguments are new
in the LOR and why I shouldn't allow them. However, if a team makes two or three
points of order on a particular position or argument I won't make them keep standing up
as long as it's being discussed. That is because while I generally feel like I shouldn't do
the work for the debaters of deciding which arguments are new and which aren't I also
don't want a team to feel like they have to interrupt their opponents 15 times in 5 minutes.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
I've come to appreciate creativity in the construction of case much more over the past two
years or so. Both in the content and form, I enjoy teams who take risks and try something
new. Of course, that doesn't always mean I'll vote for you if you do that, but I'll be much
more interested in the round and I honestly think that makes a difference for critics. If a
gov team wants to run a fact or value case they're going to have to explain very clearly
how I am to evaluate the arguments and weigh the round. Opp teams should either
respond to the gov on the gov's terms or should provide a justification for not doing so. I
think plans and counterplans should be presented with enough time to clarify text. If a
team doesn't present it until protected time but still allows a clarification that should be
fine. Performance or kritikal gov cases are fine, except that you run the risk that I'm a
little slow and don't get it. Then again, that's sort of always true. And really, I like the
crazy, I'm not going to lie. I like impacts to be as specific as possible. If they're going to
be about nuclear war or the environment or the economy that's fine, just tell me why
those things are important and how they should be evaluated in the round. I think huge
impacts and more realistic impacts, just so long as they're explained well. If two sets of
impacts are being compared and both are explained equally well, I suppose the huge
impacts would be better. Inherency is of minimal importance to a gov policy case, and
only important at all if the opp makes it important. Cases should be structured. Or not,
82