here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Bourne, Jay
University of the Cumberlands
Background of the critic:
Rounds judged this year- 50 +
Judging/ Coaching - 15 years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 8 years NPDA)
Competing- high school 4yrs policy// college 1 year NFA LD, 3 years CEDA
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
I am a flow judge.
I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and
biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the
debate round (horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the
round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much
fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines.
I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to
the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I
prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams
want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is
fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing.
Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, unless you think you can talk fast
but in reality talk more like Steve Carrell from Bruce Almighty. Ideally, parli can cover a
variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general
audience could understand a good bit of what was said.
16