here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Dreher, Michael
Bethel University
Background of the critic:
I'm the Director of Forensics and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at
Bethel University. I've also been the webmaster for NPDA for the last 9 years. I've been
competing, judging and coaching for nearly 25 years now -- this suddenly makes me feel
very old as I type this!
In terms of rounds judged this year, I've not been in many rounds, because we've had
tournaments cancel due to weather and because I've been in a lot of tab rooms. So, I've
only been in about 10 rounds this year -- but please don't confuse that with interest/desire
in judging. I figure by about round 1 or 2, the rust should be completely off!
You'll recognize me -- I'm the one with the big sketch pad. I've used it ever since I started
debating - I write big!
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy,
stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):
You’ll find that I tend to default to a policymaking paradigm unless the debaters argue
otherwise. I’m happy to listen to other kinds of debates (i.e., fact, value, etc.). I do think
there's a difference between fact, value and policy, and I don't believe all debates have to
be policy. Value debates, when argued well, are quite cool. Value debates that aren't,
however, can be pretty painful.
In any event, I look to what the judging guidelines tell me as far as what my
responsibilities are: The proposition team must affirm the resolution by presenting and
defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team must oppose the
resolution and/or the proposition team's case.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
:
53