VanEenenaam,+Bonnie

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information Name: Bonnie VanEenenaam School: Portage Northern Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): Coach Judging Experience: 6 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone): bvaneenenaam@portageps.org 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 debate etiquette requires being attentive during the debate round, supporting your partner during prep time, and following the rules of the tournament, MIFA, etc. CX should not be a time to ridicule the other team. Enforcement depends on the rules of the tournament. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) Normally, just the author, qualifications, and date. But if rules dictate otherwise they will be followed. 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). Never in a MIFA tournament, rarely in others. I believe the arguments should be understood through the speeches and explained so that I do not need to read evidence. 4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? MIFA violations will depend upon what the debaters say in round and how the penalty will be awarded. 5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X B). During Speeches Not in MIFA tournaments. Otherwise, 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 would consider myself a policymaker, but will vote on any well-developed argument. I will not do the work for you when you don’t explain your own argument. 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? Content is the most important issue. However, if I am unable to hear you because of clarity and don’t get what you said than it is your loss. Low-point wins happen when I have ton decide a winner and no one has told me how they are winning the round. Argument Preferences– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: I love good topicality debates. If you are going for T make sure to devote time to develop the arguments and spend the bulk of your time going for them. 9. Disadvantages: Will vote on disadvantages that are developed in the round. 10. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? No B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? Applying appropriately developed arguments and theory to the counterplan. But, most counterplan rounds become messy and unclear at the novice level. If you are going to get confused and unclear about the arguments- don’t run them. 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? Devote significant time to the kritik. Do not go for everything if you are going to win a kritik. If it is just a time skew in the round, it is abusive. 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.)? Keep it clear! Explain theory and how it is applied. 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debateissues? Case arguments are important. But again, you must provide the evidence and the analysis. 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, a few times and then I will stop saying anything. 15. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? Good analytics equal variance. 16. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? They are fine. 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.)? I do not like spoiled, uppity debaters.