here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

7. Clash is the heart of debate. Teams should establish their approach to the topic, advance their arguments, and thoroughly refute those of the other team. In rebuttals, debaters should trace the evolution of the most important arguments, showing why their approach prevails. 8. I do not wish to observe and judge ‘critical/performance styles’ of debate. Dilley, Benita Monmouth College Background of the critic: I am currently the faculty advisor for a club based debate and forensics program at Monmouth College, a selective admission small liberal arts college in rural southern Illinois The team is self-coached, managed, and raises all of its own money to compete in tournaments. Because participation in debate and forensics in helping to prepare me for professional life, I couldn't stand by and allow students that had raised their own funds and prepared for tournaments be told they couldn't attend or travel, just because they didn't have a faculty member to travel with them. So I go along . . .as a volunteer. I competed in NDT debate in College and served as a professional NDT coach until 1992 for the University of Iowa. I also spent many years working professionally in politics, so have participated in many "real world" public policy, fact and value debates. I teach argument, speech and various forms of communication and hold a doctorate in rhetoric and political communication from the University of Iowa. I have taught at Monmouth College, Iowa, University of Colorado and at Yale. While I participated and coached in NDT debate for many years, I love the higher standards of eloquence and civility exemplified in the parliamentary debate rounds I have seen and judged, but I am not an expert on the rules or procedures of parliamentary debate. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): As a judge I see myself as a supportive educator, assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of the arguments presented. Quality of argument and the support offered is important, but so to are the standards of very clear organization (I love sign posts and tag lines), clarity of synthesis in final speeches (discussion of the relationship of voting issues), eloquence and humor/fun in the round I hope to always be fair but carry with me years of 46
approaching argument in collegiate and governmental situation from a policy and stock issues perspective. I am old enough to remember policy debate before CEDA and when inherency arguments were acceptable in NDT debate, and have seen the power of good policy argument in shaping federal and state legislation in my service as a government staff person Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : Very important! And I don't see any reason why clear, cogent argument cannot be delivered with eloquence, excellent engaging delivery and inclusive standards of content. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I will evaluate the arguments as presented in the round. Unless an action/communication is clearly in violation of the printed rules of the tournament, I will not rule on it indepdently. And even if that situation were to come up, I would expect the debaters in the round to address it and discuss it within their times speeches if the debaters thought it was an issues critical to the decision. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: While I think performance art styles of presentation are wonderful, I am not sure that I as an argument evaluator I would see them an effective strategy toward debating the resolutions likely to be presented. But please feel free to invite me to your next performance art gallery show if you have one, and I promise to bring a cheese tray to share. Any additional comments: I am not a seasoned professional parliamentary Director of Forensics. I am just a person who learned so much in participating debate and speech, I want to come along and help the little club team at my school enjoy and learn something from the NPDA tournment. Hopefully, if you are reading this, I will get an opportunity to meet you at Nationals. Good luck in your path to the tournament and your progress through it. 47
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: Openness to critical/performative s
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?