here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Maus, David
Bethel University
Background of the critic:
I competed at the collegiate level for four years in parli (I was an NPDA All-American)
and also competed in LD. Before that I did policy debate in high school. Thus, I am very
comfortable with policy-style debates and all that come with them. But that being said, I
also appreciate that there are (at least potentially) differences between policy and parli,
and so I don’t mind if the round I’m about to judge (which you are probably competing in
if you’re reading this), doesn’t look exactly like a CEDA-NDT round.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
You tell me. Honestly, I try not to have strong opinions on these positions as a critic
because I want you to have a decent chance of talking me into adopting whichever
paradigm you think I should.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
These skills won’t affect my decision in the round (who I pick up and who I drop) but it
might affect your speaker points if you’re absolutely hapless and unpleasant to listen to.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
If you only run off-case and the Gov says, “Extend case”, I will. But quite frankly, I
believe that there are other ways for the Opp to interact with the case, like weighing
impacts or using DAs as solvency take-outs.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I’ve yet to judge a performative aff, which means I don’t have a record on this, so if
you’re really bold you can be the first and see how it goes. I enjoy good critical affs, but
the chasm between the really good critical affs and the rest is incredibly vast in my mind.
Any additional comments:
108