here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Hoag, Andrew San Diego Christian College Background of the critic: I competed in debate for 6 total years, 2 in high school NFL LD and 4 in parli for Point Loma Nazarene University. I have coached and judged some form of debate for the past five years, including acting as Director of Forensics for San Diego Christian College for the past two years. I am currently working on my MA in American Literature and am relatively well read on literary theory. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I will adopt whatever means of decision-making the teams ask me to adopt. That means of decision-making is always up for debate, so feel free to engage in framework/procedural debates. If neither team is willing/able to tell me how to decide the round, I will default to net benefits, policy-maker paradigm as that tends to be the one most commonly expected by debaters. However, different types of argumentation (such as narratives, performance, micropolitics, etc.) do change the nature of the game and the nature of my position as a judge. If you are going to make any of these arguments, please do put some work into how I fit in as a decision-maker. As for the order of deciding certain types of positions, if no argument in made otherwise, I will first evaluate topicality (or a kritik of topicality if one exists), then kritiks, and then case/disads/cps. Of course, that order is up for revision in each round if arguments are made to that effect. On the trichotomy, I believe that there is no necessary connection between the words in the resolution and a certain type of case. Also, I personally think that all three types of debate case either contain the other two or tend toward the direction of the other two. To argue that fact, value, and policy cases are wholly distinct arguments seems to me to be artificial and unnecessarily limiting of the discussion. That said, if you want to make a trichotomy argument or present a fact or value case in front of me, you can. Just like any other argument, you must be willing to defend it against any attack the other team makes. Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making : While presentation and communication are important to a certain extent for my allocation of speaker points, these elements do not factor into my decision. I vote on warrants and impacts. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: The case is as important as the debaters make it in the round. If it's still there at the end of the round, it will definitely factor into my decision, just like any other argument. I do 80
not believe that there is any type of argument that necessarily makes the case disappear from the round. There are ways to make a case argument still relevant in any sort of new opposition strategy thrown out there (even T), but it is the responsibility of the government to make those arguments. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I am open to any style of debating that the competitors wish to employ. This does not mean that I will automatically vote for a non-traditional style of debate just by virtue of running it; you must still defend your position and weigh the impacts of your style against the articulated impacts of the alternative style provided by the other team. I have voted for non-traditional arguments, but only when they are won. Personally, I like to see performance and narrative debate entering into parli. I experimented with similar debate styles near the end of my debate career, and I greatly enjoyed it. You are definitely allowed to make such arguments in front of me; of course, you are also welcome to argue that such arguments are inappropriate/unsuccessful/or whatever else you want to argue. Just remember to have fun. Any additional comments: House, Josh California State University at Long Beach Background of the critic: Parli Rounds judged this year: 50+ Non-parli rounds judged this year: 0 Years judging debate: 4 Years debated: 4 School debated at: Wyoming Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I focus on comparison (the government just needs to show their case is stronger than their opponents) although I think that can certainly include a comparison of the rhetoric that the debaters usewhich team's advocacy is best. I certainly lean to the left, so I suppose I'm going to be sympathetic to arguments that go left. But if your leftist hippy crap (and I say that with love) gets beat by some well executed conservative crap (less with the love) then I'm going to vote for the conservative crap. The arguments I have a hard time 81
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 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: I will do my best to vote where the
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 99 and 100: to be honest, they just bore me a l
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?