here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

terminal impact to procedural arguments, and generally need a reason why a given practice damages ground to reject it. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on counterplan theory, and am willing to vote on T absent abuse if it is presented well and defended as a matter of jurisdiction rather than ground. I find fact debates tedious and value debates murky, but am willing to listen to them, because I am an awesome servent of the activity. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : I have no idea what good 'presentation/communication skills' are and even less idea how they ought to factor into my decision. I guess if I can't understand you, I will give you a verbal prompt of some kind, and that if I can't understand you, it becomes difficult to determine how your arguments interact with your opponents'. I also think if you are trying to be funny and are not, it's just awkward and I am likely to punish you in speaks for that. If you are being mean or rude, please do so under the pretense of being funny, or else it is also awkward for me, and I will punish you in speaks for that. Other than those areas, I tend to be a bit of a points fairy. You will have to work very hard to get less than a 25 from me, and I usually give out one or two 30's in a 5-round tournament. I tend to use speaks to reward creative, courageous, or otherwise interesting strategic decisions or very skillful/knowledgeable argumentative handiwork. I guess this would also go here, but please be prepared to defend all your rhetorical choices. If you call a group of people by some sort of slur or use otherwise violent language as a means of humor, be prepared to defend that as humorous or otherwise valuable. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: Relative importance of on-case argumentation to what I think on-case argumentation is more important than sunshine but less important than chocolate milk The successful employment of on-case argumentation can be tremendously important in some rounds, less so in others. Debaters conceed arguments all the time to gain strategic advantage. If you think it's strategicly beneficial to conceed the case, do it. If the other team can leverage the case against your arguments in a meaningful way, then you probably made the wrong strategic decision. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: As I said before, I view debate as a game of competing advocacies. An advocacy generally takes the form of Actor X ought to undertake Action Y. Actor X can be anything until the other team tells me why it can't. So long as you have a textual advocacy like that, I am perfectly comfortable adjudicating your debate. If there is something else you plan to do, I would ask that the other team have the choice of engaging your argument or engaging your framework, and that you specifically explain 196
the significance of the ballot so that I know what I am doing by voting for you. If I don't know, I'm unlikely to do so. Any additional comments: Woods, Steve Western Washington University Background of the critic: Debated policy at Kansas State University, Coached at KSU, Florida State, Vermont, Willima Jewell, and currently director at WWU. Have been exclusively parli for 3 years. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I tend to use the flow as a template for the round. I tend to default to policy making paradigm, though open to other ways of seeing the round and criteria if clearly explained and fit to the context of the round/resolution. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Good humor, being pleasant and positive interaction with the others in the room will be rewarded. Content is more important than style, but both in combination are appreciated. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: "defensive" arguments can be valuable for both prop and opp. A poor case does not take much off case to off set, or even any if internally incoherent. While not exactly "presumption", the prop does have a huge advantage, they should probably win the debate for me to vote for them. Conversely generic and non-linked opp arguments will not go far. Read that last statement as specifc to "spec" and other procedurals if you like. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Has to link and be thoughtful. Generic arguments won't be rewarded. Arguments I have seen you run several times this season will be weighed less heavily. Any additional comments: 197
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:
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: T and Theory Arguments: I would say
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?