here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University
here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University
here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Jensen, Kris<br />
Hired<br />
Critic background<br />
I competed for four years at Willamette <strong>University</strong>. I coached two high school debate<br />
teams in Anchorage, Alaska after undergrad. I’m now attending Law School in Michigan.<br />
Decision-making<br />
I try to be as tabula rasa as possible in evaluating rounds- any means <strong>of</strong> upholding the<br />
resolution is potentially valid. That said, my default preference is policy, as such cases<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten provide the cleanest method <strong>of</strong> judging the round.<br />
Relative importance <strong>of</strong> presentation<br />
Low. Manner and style <strong>of</strong> presentation does not influence my determination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
winner <strong>of</strong> the round. It does, however, factor into my speaker point calculus. Brisk<br />
delivery is acceptable, but delivery that leaves me grasping for the last three statements is<br />
not.<br />
Relative importance <strong>of</strong> on-case argumentation<br />
Not required but <strong>of</strong>ten very effective. I think an opp team can win strictly <strong>of</strong>f-case, but<br />
doing so makes their burden that much higher. Mitigating/turning on-case material can<br />
reduce the burden on the <strong>of</strong>f-case.<br />
Openness to critical/performative debate<br />
I’m open to performative debate. That doesn’t mean I know how to evaluate it. I<br />
encourage those who wish to perform to propose some clear method <strong>of</strong> evaluation.<br />
I only vote for a kritik in the rarest <strong>of</strong> cases. Feel free to wow me with your kritik, but be<br />
warned you have a tough road ahead.<br />
Additional comments<br />
• Regarding Topicality, I think it is a valid though <strong>of</strong>ten overused argument. While<br />
I’ve voted for it, I’ve also proved sympathetic to teams which respond to a given<br />
T attack by properly pointing out it was a time suck that devalued the debate - and<br />
awarded points and the win accordingly. A case w<strong>here</strong> the gov fails to uphold the<br />
resolution, or w<strong>here</strong> the ground loss is clearly identified and the ground loss<br />
explained, will be met with favor.<br />
• I do not require that CPs be non-topical.<br />
• Regarding points <strong>of</strong> information, a team that refuses to entertain any but asks<br />
many will be penalized.<br />
• Jargon is fine- but if it leaves me with a quizzical expression, it would be best to<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer an explanation <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
87