here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

This is your platform do as you wish. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I am not particular about arguing on case or off case. I will listen to argument regarding why both or neither are important. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I am open to any and all forms of debate. Any additional comments: Here are some of my likes and dislikes: • I don’t like rudeness. I appreciate sarcasm and mocking as much as the next gal however I don’t like it when people are mean just for the sake of being mean. • I don’t like warrant-less arguments. While I realize back filling warrants has become the norm in many debates doing this in excess is abusive and I will give the other team leeway for abuse arguments. • I like examples and feel they are necessary to good debate rounds. • I am fine with speed however spreading out a team of less experience than you just to be mean is not cool and I will give leeway to abuse arguments. • I am fine with procedurals but please tell me how they function and why they are better than your opponents arguments. • I hate liars. Please don’t be one. • I like interesting stuff. If you have something wanky/crazy you want to run I am a great critic to do that in front of. • I should probably add, I am a critic that gives a lot of facial expressions. Generally you can tell by my nonverbals what I am feeling. That means pay attention to me. If I am shuffling my papers back and forth and it looks like I am searching for where you are on the flow I probably am, so help me out and tell me where you are. If I look confused, I probably am, so try telling me your argument in another way or giving an example to prove your point. • Finally I believe debate is about advocacy. That is why I love it so much. So please tell me something real, don’t be a jerk and have fun. As long as we do that everything will be fine. • Also, if you want to know how I judge ask any Southern California debater. I have been judging quite a bit this year and they can give you good advice. 192
Whitsitt, Travis The Colorado College Background of the critic: I did 4 years of parli at Colorado College, 3 years under Bonnie Stapleton and my senior year under Chris Shaw. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I view debate as a competitive game, nothing more. The game does have certain rules, but I will listen to arguments about why those rules are illegitimate if you care to present them. I will vote on anything as long as you give me clear reasons why I should. I hate to say I have zero tolerance for anything, but I will have a lot of trouble evaluating a fact debate. Unless you can provide me with a coherent framework for evaluating such a debate, I think fact debates default to counting examples or warrants, which is not a productive use of anyone's time. However, if you think you have the fact framework that is objective and usable, then feel free. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : I try to stick to the flow. If someone tells me the sky is green, I treat it as gospel until you tell me something else. I think I'm pretty good, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand you. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: For the love, though, weigh impacts. Really. Please. Otherwise, I do it for you, and someone gets very angry that I didn't do it their way. Have fun, be rude or cordial, I don't care. Just win and be smart. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: My conservative politics will not play into my evaluation of your arguments, so run whatever you like. I will be pleased if you bother to warrant leftist arguments rather than assuming their intuitive truth like you can with many judges, but I won't punish you for not doing so (unless, of course, your lack of warrants allows the other team to beat your arguments). Any additional comments: 193
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:
Page 93 and 94:
I really appreciate a combination o
Page 95 and 96:
Jones, Steven Grove City College Ba
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
to be honest, they just bore me a l
Page 101 and 102:
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:
Page 139 and 140:
Performance debates are just pure t
Page 141 and 142: Openness to critical/performative s
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: disrespecting a colleague’s life
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?