here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Worth, David
Rice Univ.
Background of the critic:
Judging and coaching since 1993.
Parli Policy background.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my
own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will if the round demands it.
There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically
for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know
something to factually incorrect (if you are lying). In these cases I try to stay out of the
decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a
blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.
I’ll judge based on given criteria. This might include a stock issues approach, a
comparison approach, a "proof of the res/case" approach, or an advocacy approach. I
can think in more than one way. This also means that the mechanisms for deciding the
round are up for debate as far as I m concerned.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
Speed: OK as long as you are clear. --Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or
promotion language: I d rather see you try to be inclusive than not.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:
The argument’s weight depends on how strong it is. I think line-by-line vs. "big picture"
is an artificial divide anyway. This can vary by round. I would say you need to deal with
all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for
me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote
on the most general level of the ideas.
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:
Fine with me.
Don't lie.
198