Stomski,+Elizabeth

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information Name: Elizabeth Stomski School: Eisenhower Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): Assistant Coach Judging Experience: 2 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: Just Eisenhower Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone): email: estomski@gmail.com 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 is being respectful to the other team/ the judge. This is before, after, and during a round. If I’m offended by it and it denotes from general politeness, I will dock speaker points and explain why. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) I only need the author’s name and date, unless it’s a MIFA tournament. As long as the other info is on the card, I am ok. 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). I will read the evidence only if a good part of the debate enters on the rhetoric in the evidence. Otherwise, it is up to the debaters to explain the evidence to me. 4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? If it’s a MIFA tournament, I will dock speaker points. If it’s a citation violation, I will not consider the evidence. 5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X - Fine B). During Speeches - Fine, just don’t take over your partner’s CX on speech 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’m a tabular rausa judge. I will vote where I’m told to. I will look at topicality before case arguments generally. I can vote in another paradigm if the debates put me there. 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 see debate as an educational activity to discuss policy options. Presentation is about 70% - argument, style, mannerisms, confidence,- but the other 30% is based on policy options. Argument Preferences– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: I will look here before I evaluate anything else, being a policy issue. I like good topicality debates. 9. Disadvantages: Weighing them versus case is critical in the rebuttals. You need to tell me the story of the DA beyond the link card 10. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? Yes, encroaches on ground B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? If it solves better than plan and the SQ - the more competitive the better 11. Kritiks: A) Will you/do you vote on kritiks? I try not to. I prefer the case debate B) If yes, what does the team running a kritik need to do to win the argument? If I am forced to vote here, I need it to be spoon-fed to me. Not due to a lack of understanding, but I want to make you, the debater, understands the argument. 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.)? Theory is pretty essential to debate- I will look at these before a case debate 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? I love voting on case arguments. I believe that’s where most of the education comes from. I need the story of the case/ DA told to me 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? I will indicate to the debaters if I’m not following them. I’m a very visual judge. I will go to the extreme of dropping my pen and stop flowing if necessary. 15. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? If the analytical arguments are good and go to the rhetoric behind the card, it’ll get equal weight. Analytical arguments show you really understand what’s going on in the round. 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’m ok with case arguments being new (the aff can still use the AIC) but new kritiks, topicalities in debates are kind of abusive. 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.)? Have fun- that’s pretty important, and people forget that fun is a key reason to debate- If you’re not enjoying the round, I won’t be either.