here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Bethel University Calculus/Precalculus Math Placement Exam ...$

not a fan of performance "debate." I often find that arguments seem to be missing and I don't like to make my decisions based on what I believe your are trying to say. I believe that results in an intervention on my part nine times out of ten. *** We all signed an agreement to abide by NPDA sexual harassment guidelines. I don't want to listen to any narratives about your sexual experience because it creates a hostile environment. If you feel compelled to do so, please strike me when you are filling out your judge preference sheet. Any additional comments: Please be gracious to your partner and to the other team. I don't enjoy debaters who are disrespectful to their partner and their competition and usually don't award them with very high speaker points. Romanelli, David Loyola University Chicago Background of the critic: I debated in CEDA when we did quasi-policy, value, fact and policy. I have coached CEDA, NDT, LD and parli. I think the resolution is the focus of debate. Speed and hyper specific policies are some times troubling in parli. I flow. You should point out the new arguments made in the rebuttals. It is your job to compare arguments. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I look to the resolution and the arguments offered by the debaters to help guide my decision. Some would like to see this as only policy debate; yet not all the resolutions support that. You can indeed have an intelligent and interesting debate about facts or values as well as policy. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : It is the arguments that matter. If I can't understand you it's not an argument. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: Depends on the round. I think it is important to challenge the Governments framework early. 140
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I have no interest in performative debate (unless the resolution specifically calls for it). A K may apply but I'm not a fan. Any additional comments: Ross, Scott Hired I did parli for the now-defunct University of Missouri squad and the now-defunct Drury University parli squad. I went to three NPTEs, with decent success at my last one. The type of debating seen at that tournament is what I enjoyed when I competed and what I like to see when I watch/judge rounds. Policy debate is far and away what I prefer to see, and I approach it as a policymaker via net benefits. Stock issues never made sense to me and I don't care for the trichotomy. There are times when value is a defensible format, but I would STRONGLY discourage running fact debates and will vote on 'fact bad.' As a label count me as a flow judge, concerned only with argumentation. Presentation doesn't matter and I don't need on-case if you don't want to give it. Follow the line-by-line and cover everything. That being said, I'm not a tab hack. I view rounds with a wide-angle lens and I think arguments become intertwined all over the flow: if you say something in three places and they only answer it twice, that doesn't mean you get a free ride with the third. Likewise, if an argument relies on several steps to be true, your opponent doesn't have to answer every level of analysis if they take out the foundations. And just because someone doesn't say "T is a voter" in the LOR, doesn't mean T goes away. Essentially I'm saying arguments are interdependent and stretch across positions and taglines, and I view them thematically. But still be sure to cover. My requests for you are: 1) Make sense/don't make dumb arguments. I'm a flow judge, but I will get and have gotten lost when I don't know what a debater's saying because it's nonsensical or irrelevant. If it doesn't make sense I don't know how to weigh it. 2) Debate what you can win. If you're running stuff you don't like 141
Page 1 and 2:
2008 NPDA National Championship Ju
Page 3 and 4:
Amundsen, Allen Humboldt State Univ
Page 5 and 6:
Anderson, Jared Los RIos Community
Page 7 and 8:
alone is not going to help you win
Page 9 and 10:
Baechtel, Mark Grinnell Clg Backgro
Page 11 and 12:
the flow, but the way you make argu
Page 13 and 14:
Bingham, Paul Western Washington Un
Page 15 and 16:
I’m fine with critiques as long a
Page 17 and 18:
Relative importance of on-case argu
Page 19 and 20:
Brodak, Geoffrey California State U
Page 21 and 22:
Bruce, Kathleen University of the P
Page 23 and 24:
objecting to). This does not meant
Page 25 and 26:
debate but i also think that "trad
Page 27 and 28:
I am open to both critical and perf
Page 29 and 30:
Speeches should be clear and you sh
Page 31 and 32:
Presentation Preferences: presentat
Page 33 and 34:
change. Opposition teams, if you ar
Page 35 and 36:
Coulter, Michael Grove City College
Page 37 and 38:
Cress, Justin Western Kentucky Univ
Page 39 and 40:
personally am getting tired of hear
Page 41 and 42:
C/P’s: Can be either mutually exc
Page 43 and 44:
I have a policy and parliamentary d
Page 45 and 46:
Openness to critical/performative s
Page 47 and 48:
approaching argument in collegiate
Page 49 and 50:
to the speed question is this: if y
Page 51 and 52:
seems that at least mitigating the
Page 53 and 54:
Dreher, Michael Bethel University B
Page 55 and 56:
Drutman, Paul University of Puget S
Page 57 and 58:
Depends on the round. I generally p
Page 59 and 60:
Funkhouser, Eric University of Arka
Page 61 and 62:
debate out. Openness to critical/pe
Page 63 and 64:
Garner, Kevin Texas Tech University
Page 65 and 66:
I am NOT tabula rasa. I'm a critica
Page 67 and 68:
Grace, Jeremy Rice Univ. Background
Page 69 and 70:
Relative importance of presentation
Page 71 and 72:
Fiat for politics: I think that fia
Page 73 and 74:
See below in “cautionary notes”
Page 75 and 76:
speaker points are based on good ar
Page 77 and 78:
Unique consideration: I am hearing
Page 79 and 80:
I will do my best to vote where the
Page 81 and 82:
not believe that there is any type
Page 83 and 84:
depending on the argument. But if y
Page 85 and 86:
I like straight up substantive on c
Page 87 and 88:
Jensen, Kris Hired Critic backgroun
Page 89 and 90: hold critical positions to a very h
Page 91 and 92: Relative importance of on-case argu
Page 93 and 94: I really appreciate a combination o
Page 95 and 96: Jones, Steven Grove City College Ba
Page 97 and 98: Openness to critical/performative s
Page 99 and 100: to be honest, they just bore me a l
Page 101 and 102: Openness to critical/performative s
Page 103 and 104: Livingston, Ashleigh Point Loma Naz
Page 105 and 106: Martin, JJ Abilene Christian Univer
Page 107 and 108: (3) Disadvantages/counter-plans: Go
Page 109 and 110: I’ve voted on some pretty wacky a
Page 111 and 112: Menapace, Carrie Western Kentucky U
Page 113 and 114: Decision-making: I will do my best
Page 115 and 116: Case Arguments: 'Values imply actio
Page 117 and 118: Must be clearly defined by the deba
Page 119 and 120: Newkirk, Daniel Biola University B
Page 121 and 122: say I'm tabula rasa, but I'm not su
Page 123 and 124: 8. I do not wish to observe and jud
Page 125 and 126: I react to criticism presented with
Page 127 and 128: kicked by the negative. I rarely bu
Page 129 and 130: Plush, Matt University of Wyoming 4
Page 131 and 132: Approach of the critic to decision-
Page 133 and 134: will not flat drop you for that lan
Page 135 and 136: Disadvantage Arguments: Big DA's wi
Page 137 and 138: Relative importance of on-case argu
Page 139: Performance debates are just pure t
Page 143 and 144: eason alone I would advise against
Page 145 and 146: should not be topical and should be
Page 147 and 148: Sanberg, Savannah Hired 1.) My crit
Page 149 and 150: Schabot, Daniel Cameron University
Page 151 and 152: etter, more fun, and more education
Page 153 and 154: Strategic issue selection in rebutt
Page 155 and 156: Sietman, Dan Cedarville University
Page 157 and 158: Because I abhor judge intervention,
Page 159 and 160: Being from a predominantly policy d
Page 161 and 162: Relative importance of presentation
Page 163 and 164: The primary thing I look for when j
Page 165 and 166: Soto, Jen Hired Background of the c
Page 167 and 168: The debaters determine who gets my
Page 169 and 170: Stutzman, Jacob Truman State Univer
Page 171 and 172: I’m open to it. Please note that
Page 173 and 174: I believe that the government team
Page 175 and 176: Tiongson, Edwin Irvine Valley Colle
Page 177 and 178: Not a huge fan of such debates, but
Page 179 and 180: I don't care how fast you go as lon
Page 181 and 182: Vemuru, Vamsi NPDA Hired Judges Bac
Page 183 and 184: Communication skills can influence
Page 185 and 186: If a team wants me to adopt a parti
Page 187 and 188: Weaver, Scott The Colorado College
Page 189 and 190: I personally do not care about the
Page 191 and 192:
disrespecting a colleague’s life
Page 193 and 194:
Whitsitt, Travis The Colorado Colle
Page 195 and 196:
T and Theory Arguments: I would say
Page 197 and 198:
the significance of the ballot so t
Page 199 and 200:
Wyman, Jim Moorpark College Backgro
show all

here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?