kissmycls
11-29-06, 12:41 PM
This is from the 2006 NPDA.
David Dirgo – Creighton University
I've decided that this is a lot simpler than it looks: Be smart and speak well. If you do those things, you'll be fine.
For the most part, I am a substantive critic, and will vote on the substance of the arguments you present, and the impact
those arguments have on the decision rule. I flow constructive speeches, but not rebuttals, as rebuttal speeches generally
reflect synopsis and crystallization instead of line-by-line responses. (That doesn't mean I'm not listening, or that a failure
to respond to a key argument will not be meaningful.)
I expect debaters to know the issues, offer intelligent and insightful analysis to support their claims, and clearly
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 a matter of 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. There are elements of persuasion, however, that are 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 reaching a decision.
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 email
me at daviddirgo@gmail.com.
David Dirgo – Creighton University
I've decided that this is a lot simpler than it looks: Be smart and speak well. If you do those things, you'll be fine.
For the most part, I am a substantive critic, and will vote on the substance of the arguments you present, and the impact
those arguments have on the decision rule. I flow constructive speeches, but not rebuttals, as rebuttal speeches generally
reflect synopsis and crystallization instead of line-by-line responses. (That doesn't mean I'm not listening, or that a failure
to respond to a key argument will not be meaningful.)
I expect debaters to know the issues, offer intelligent and insightful analysis to support their claims, and clearly
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 a matter of 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. There are elements of persuasion, however, that are 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 reaching a decision.
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 email
me at daviddirgo@gmail.com.