here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Any additional comments:
I don’t like superfluous T arguments, if you run T you’ll need to make your argument
very convincing. That having been said, I will pull the trigger on T if I have to do so. I
like real world impacts (not nuke war or genocide), and very strong link scenarios. I
don’t like “prep time abuse” arguments since I think that parli should be a realm for
creativity and quick-thinking. Also the “we didn’t have internet” argument is not
convincing, so Gov run cases that you understand. Both teams should take a reasonable
amount of POIs.
Landry, Luke
University of Oregon
Background of the critic:
4 years high school policy debate.
4 years college parliamentary debate.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
i default to a policy maker if no one tels me otherwise. however, i am willing to evaluate
the round by any criteria the debaters see fit, so long those criteria are articulated. this
does not mean that i come to the round free of bias or thresholds, just that i attempt to do
my best at viewing the debate on your terms.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
i guess this is where i'm supposed to say that i'm ok with speed. i am, but i will caution
you that my pen isn't as fast as it ought to be, so if you start getting blippy or not ever
pausing, i'll probably miss something.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
i mean, it's probably a good idea, but i'm not going to punish you for your strategic
choices.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
98