here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Dirgo, David
Creighton University
Background of the critic:
Judging Philosophy
David Dirgo
Creighton University
I have been involved in competitive forensics, in one form or another, for about 25
years. Most pertinently, I competed in parliamentary debate as an undergraduate at
Creighton (BA ’94), and have been an active volunteer coach for Creighton since then.
I’ve decided that parliamentary debate is a lot simpler than it sometimes looks: Be
smart and speak well. Do those things, and you’ll be fine. For the most part, I will vote on
the substance of the arguments you present, and the impact those arguments have on a
decision rule. I flow constructive speeches linebyline, but not rebuttals, as rebuttals
generally reflect synopsis instead of linebyline response. (That doesn’t mean I’m not
listening, or that failure to respond to a key argument is not meaningful.)
I expect debaters to know the issues, offer intelligent and insightful analysis to
support their claims, and explain how their advocacy should lead me to vote for or
against the resolution. How you label those arguments--solvency, advantages,
disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, resolutionality, critiques with a
‘c’, kritiks with a ‘k’, or whatever--is usually little more than semantics. I will be focused
on the substance of the argument, the internal and external consistency of the argument,
and whether the impact of the argument is clearly and persuasively articulated. In that
regard, I tend to be an “analysis judge.” There are elements of persuasion, however,
distinct from the substance of the arguments you offer in the round, and I reserve the
right to consider rhetorical elements such as eloquence, humor, and demeanor when
making a decision. (Generally, however, these will function only as “tiebreakers,” when a
round is very close.)
In that context, I am often asked about speed. Whether you are going “too fast,” for
me, depends on whether your arguments have depth and impact. If you have a lot to say,
then by all means say it, even if that means saying it quickly. Sometimes, you just have a
lot to do and not much time to do it, and I understand that. The risk of speed, in my
experience, is that for many debaters it comes at the expense of developed, meaningful
argumentation, as debaters worry more about quantity than quality. So the short answer
48