Thusam,+Joel

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information Name: Joel Thursam School: West Bloomfield Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): Director Judging Experience: 4 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone): e-mail Process Preferences. What do you require debaters to do in a round and how do you view your role as judge (e.g., to reward, to sanction behaviors). 1. Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations. Proper manners, let partner give speech/c-x-don’t interrupt, be nice to opponents, no personal attacks-in most cases I’ll dock speaker points. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) Author, source, date-all aloud 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). Only if evidence is challenged or called into question by the opposing team. 4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? Depending on the violation in most cases will result in docking of speaker points. 5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X B). During Speeches During cross-avoid if possible, during speeches no verbal prompting, but cards are okay. Paradigm and Argument Preferences 6. Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different paradigm? If so, when and why? I default to policy maker, but only a default. I’ll vote on any issue/argument if it is explained and ran well in round. 7. Please compare issues of presentation and content. Do you view debate as primarily an activity of communication and persuasiveness? Do you view debate as a search for the best policy option? In other words, does the team with a better presentation/style always win the debate? Under what conditions, if any, would you give a low-point win? I view debate as a search for best policy option. Presentation is important but not as much as content. Low point win if win on one small aspect or use bad manners. Argument Preferences– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: Highly likely if ran well on line-by-line and fully explained in 2NR and no drops 9. Disadvantages: Highly likely but needs to outweigh impacts of case 10. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? No B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? Ran fully-just need to be fully knowledgeable of CP (and theory) 11. Kritiks: A) Will you/do you vote on kritiks? Yes B) If yes, what does the team running a kritik need to do to win the argument? Must have an actual (not generic) link and must have an alternative (real world alt) 12. Theory. Please explain any predispositions you may have for or against issues of theory. How likely are you to vote on theoretical arguments (permutations, severance, conditionality, inherency, textual kritik alternatives, specialized topicality issues, dispositionality, etc.)? I vote on theory but don’t like to, teams need to make into a big issue and explain well for me to vote on it. 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debateissues? I love case debates-neg takes out or mitigates case I’ll vote, Aff needs to carry weight of case across throughout. Style and Performance Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: 14. Speed of Delivery (slower – equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? Yes, verbally-for most part I’m fine with speed. 15. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? Depends on what’s said- in most cases I’ll look to evidence first. 16. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? I don’t prefer them-finishing shells from 1NC is fine-otherwise avoid 17. Is there anything else students/coaches should know about your judging philosophy (e.g., are there any substantive arguments you have biases for or against, etc.)? Manners are important, have fun and keep a positive attitude.