here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

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
Wyman, Jim Moorpark College Background of the critic: I have been involved in debate for over 46 years. I debated for 4 years in High School and 4 years on the National Debate Circuit. I have coached and judged for the last 36 years. Until 11 years ago I coached only in traditional, policy debate. I taught for the first 13 years at the Arizona Debate Institute. 11 years ago I discovered Parliamentary Debate and it rejuvenated me as a Coach. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I don’t like speed debate; and I want real world arguments. I do not intervene, but I will weigh the credibility of arguments: thus, if an argument is not responded to, but it has no credibility or weight, I will ignore it. I won’t issue Points of Order sua sponte (the same is true of introducing my own arguments for a decision). I believe there are three types of resolutions. I have always described my paradigm as using a judicial model (I am a non-practicing attorney). Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : As long as I can understand what is being said, the presentation and communication skills would be reflected in speaker points rather than in the decision-making process. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: While I would vote on off-case arguments if they overwhelm the government case, I prefer clash and the willingness of the opposition to engage the government on their ground. To an extent I prefer the stock issues as the focus. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: · I will listen to any arguments that are legitimately presented. In other words, I will listen to topicality/resolutionality; and I do believe it is a voting issue. I don’t really like Kritiks (or however it is spelled), but I will listen to the argument · I like well structured arguments 199
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 and 196: T and Theory Arguments: I would say
Page 197: the significance of the ballot so t
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?