here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Stutzman, Jacob
Truman State University
Background of the critic:
I did CX all through high school, four years of parli, little bit of NFA-LD, and I've
coached parli for a couple of years (though not this one). I'm working on a PhD at Univ.
of Kansas studying religious and political rhetoric.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
Debaters should ultimately decide the form and substance of the round. This includes
critical and performative arguments and the application of the trichotomy. Tell me what
sort of framework you want me to use to evaluate the arguments and then weigh your
arguments through that framework. Framework debates are not, in and of themselves,
round-winners but s/he who wins the framework debate obviously has an advantage when
I turn to write out the ballot. If you don't specify a frame (or weighing mechanism or
criteria or whatever), then I pick the one that makes my job easiest. Tell me how I should
understand and evaluate your arguments, however they may be presented. Without an
articulated explanation of how the argument should be understood and evaluated, I will
get cranky and unpredictable.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
I vote on arguments and assign speaker ranks/points based on presentation. When poor
presentation interferes with the effective communication of arguments, those arguments
generally don't get onto the flow. Unless the tournament specifically prohibits the
practice, I am willing to give low-point wins, but that does not usually happen.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Impact your arguments within the round for me. Make an argument, win it, then tell me
why winning that argument moves you toward winning the round. I vote for the
arguments that are impacted well, regardless of where they are placed on my flow.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
I'm fine with critical/performance arguments, provided you have a framework that tells
me how I should evaluate the arguments.
Any additional comments:
169