here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

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
to the speed question is this: if you have a lot of good arguments, then make them. If you have a lot of notsogood arguments, you have bigger issues than rate of delivery. As in years past, I will try to make myself available to offer comments and answer questions after I have turned in my ballot. I prefer not to disclose a decision or discuss the round until the ballot has been completed and delivered to the ballot table. If any questions occur to you when you read the ballot after the tournament, you should feel free to e-mail me at daviddirgo@gmail.com. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): see above Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : see above Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: Any additional comments: Doty, Tim Lewis-Clark State College Background of the critic: My competitive experience includes 4 years of policy debate in high school and 2-3 years of on-and-off NDT competition (a little CEDA—but it had just merged with NDT at the time). My coaching/judging experience includes some part-time, high school policy debate, a few high school policy debate workshops, and 10 years of on-andoff parliamentary debate experience at the college level. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): 49
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: approaching argument in collegiate
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:
Openness to critical/performative s
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:
Openness to critical/performative s
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?