here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Cole, Becky
Hired
1. Background: I competed in NPDA for Creighton University from 2002-2006.
2. Decision making approach: I generally try to approach judging debate as tab as
possible, within the rules of the activity. I will listen to any arguments you choose to
present using any judging criteria you give me.
3. Communication/presentation importance: I do think that NPDA is a communications
event, and do recognize that the constitution discusses the “delivery” portion of the
activity alongside the “content”. However, if both teams are capable and want to debate
speed, I will be happy to flow that and will not punish them for that choice, as long as
they’re articulate. If one team is not comfortable at an abnormally fast past, I would
expect their opponent to respect any requests to slow down (but, please, do not see this as
an invite to run an unnecessary speed argument – I’ll listen to it, but I’m not predisposed
towards voting for one.)
4. On-case argument importance: On-case arguments are as relevant as the round makes
them. I do expect the government team to in someway affirm the resolution.
5. Openness to critical/performance styles: Critical/performance style debate was
generally not how I debated in college, but I am more than willing to listen and weigh
those arguments. That being said, these positions will likely require more time and
internal analysis on your part to ensure that I comprehend their impacts.
6. Additional comments: I do enjoy smart, witty and friendly rounds – a little sarcasm
between friends on opposite sides is no big deal – but, try not to be overtly rude or
inconsiderate of your opponents.
Corum Billman, Jenny
I try to be as tab and as possible. In general, I don’t go for abuse arguments – I think I
voted on abuse only once last year, and I probably wouldn’t do it again. I will, however,
consistently vote for procedurals that involve precision, education, or jurisdiction. I think
net benefits demonstrate competition on a counterplan. I’m fine with speed if you’re
clear. I avoid considering new arguments, but it is the responsibility of the debaters to
call them in rebuttals. I really like strategy, so apply positions to other positions and don’t
be afraid to kick things. Bonus points for clear organization, frownie faces for making
things up when you don’t know the truth. If you ask me, “So, do you have a paradigm”
in the round, I’ll just shrug and not say anything. If you do have a specific question,
though, I would be happy to answer it.
34