here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

· Style and speaking ability are not reasons for decision. BUT. I like speed because it more often than not develops the argumentation. Developed arguments go a lot further in my mind than rhetoric. Speed as a strategy to disenfranchise another team sucks, but if you think the other team can hang, I can go as fast as you want. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: · I like well-defined burdens and resolutional analysis, as well as good debates about these things (topicality is fly by me). · I need impacts to decide the round. Policy is the best mechanism for this. For Neg, the best strat is probably a well linked DA… or 8 of them. · Blatantly policy resolutions call for blatantly policy cases, but the value implications of policy decisions are important and should be debated as well. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Any additional comments: That is about it. Feel free to ask for clarification before the round. Denomie, Dave Marquette University Background of the critic: Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: 44
Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Any additional comments: Dave Denomie – Assistant Director of Debate, Marquette University 1. 30+ years of debate experience – frequent judge (although fewer rounds in recent years) 2. Topicality is a voting issue. However, topicality should be argued only when appropriate, not automatically in every round, or just for “something to say.” I tend to prefer rounds that focus on substance as opposed to semantics or debate theory. 3. Counterplans are acceptable. They need to be non-propositional and welldeveloped, not just tossed out haphazardly. 4. Disadvantages must have a direct connection to the Proposition plan/policy action. On impacts, disadvantages are given more leeway since evidential documentation is not used. Impacts should be linked and well-explained but can be creative and will be given credit if logically presented. 5. ‘Kritiks’ of either team’s fundamental assumptions are acceptable. Your explanations should be clear and logical. Again, listening to lengthy and involved debate theory-based arguments are not my favorite way to spend a debate round. 6. I prefer a conversational tone. All participants in the round should be cordial and respectful. 45
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: I have a policy and parliamentary d
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: Relative importance of on-case argu
Page 93 and 94: I really appreciate a combination o
Page 95 and 96:
Jones, Steven Grove City College Ba
Page 97 and 98:
Openness to critical/performative s
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:
Relative importance of on-case argu
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 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?