here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

If a team wants me to adopt a particular decision-making method, I'll go with it as long as
I know (1) why I should adopt the method and (2) how the method functions, especially
in relation to the ballot and the ground for the other team. In general, I'll go with
whatever you want to do as long as I know (1) why you're doing whatever you're doing,
(2) why I should care about your argument, and (3) where you want me to flow whatever
you're saying.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
In my mind, argumentation is primary and the presentation skills should only be used to
support the argumentation. For example, sometimes you have to speed to get the
necessary, effective arguments into the round. That's cool. However, if you think
"speed" just means lots of wheezing and yelling, that's not a presentation that helps your
argument. However, the higher speaker points are not necessarily tied to the winning
team so bad presentation does not mean you lose the round.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
Unless Opp delivers a specific reason for doing so, ignoring case altogether annoys me.
Run whatever off-case you want and I understand the strategies there, but I do like to see
some kind of argument interaction on-case. Even just 1 minute on-case is fine.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
My experience with critical/performative styles is very limited but I don't have a problem
with it. In the rounds I've judged, teams using those argument styles seem to forget that I
still have to deliver a completed ballot to the ballot table. In those rounds, the team
utilizing the style needs to be very clear on what their framework says about the ballot,
what it means, and how I should fill it out.
Any additional comments:
185