DeMoore,+Tina

Name: Christina (Tina) DeMoore School: Petoskey High School Position: Coach Judging Experience: 5 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: No **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). Effective exchange of ideas requires civility. There can be able debate on issues without rudeness, improper language, interruption, etc. Point reductions for egregious lack of civility in a round. Name and date. However, source is important if not evident from the name. Please have the full cite in your written evidence. Note: I do not flow tag lines as evidence. I will read evidence after the round if it is questioned in the round, critical to the decision and I’m asked to do so or I’m in need of further clarification. Otherwise, I will consider only the evidence clearly presented by the debaters in the round. It depends on the infraction and whether there is an associated MIFA defined consequence. Absent a defined consequence and depending on the degree of infraction, I would typically dock speaker points. Don’t do it. Ever. Every debater has his/her own voice. This practice deters from each individual voice being given the opportunity to be fully heard. = Paradigm and Argument Preferences = I am a stock issues and/or policy judge. I am a lawyer by trade and primarily want to hear a lively exchange of arguments on the resolution. I look for the Affirmative to meet their burden of proof on case and, conversely, for the Negatives to meet their burden of proof on a DA or Counterplan. Since debate is an educational activity, substance is of the essence. Having said that, an evidence- laden presentation is ineffective if not offered in a way that can be understood. I’m very interested in content //and// effective analysis. If you are running someone else’s material or canned arguments, analysis and associated persuasion are not optimal. **Argument Preferences** – include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: I will vote on topicality but prefer it be reserved for argument not as a throw-away but only where it is truly meaningful. I will vote on DAs that are researched, unique, actually link to the case and are understood by the debaters. I am not a fan of the dumping of a bunch of generic DAs to see what might stick. I will vote on Counterplans that are non-topical, mutually exclusive, net beneficial. No conditional Counterplans or perms. No. In my opinion, these theoretical arguments are not well understood by //most// debaters presenting them but, instead, are utilized as a technique to win rounds without debating the resolution. I prefer evidence, analysis and debate on the topic. Since these theories do not advance dialogue on the resolution, I will likely not vote on them. I am strongly inclined to vote for on case arguments. To win, present solid evidence, analyze effectively and persuade me.
 * ** MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information ** ||
 * 1) Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations.
 * 1) Evidence citations.
 * 1) Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence).
 * 1) How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)?
 * 1) Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner)
 * 2) During C/X
 * 3) During Speeches
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) Topicality:
 * 1) Disadvantages:
 * 1) Counterplans:
 * 1) Kritiks:
 * 2) Will you/do you vote on kritiks?
 * 3) If yes, what does the team running kritik need to do to win the argument?
 * 1) 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 alternative, specialized topicality issues, dispositionality, etc.)
 * 1) On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues?

Style and Performance
Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: Four. Unless you aspire to be an auctioneer, spewing has no real world value. As an attorney, I would be jailed for contempt and referred to the Bar disciplinary committee for providing ineffective counsel if I spoke in the courtroom at a speed level rendering judges to flow tags. Clarity over speed. Quality over quantity. Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? Indicate verbally a couple of times and then set down the pen. Evidence is essential but analytical arguments can be extremely powerful. The weight of analytics in a particular round relative to outcome would depend on the content of the round. Case debates not initiated in the 1NC are OK since the 2NC is a constructive speech. Major arguments, however, should be presented in the 1NC to allow for effective exchange and enhance direct clash. I am a vigilante for essential debate – excellent research, command of the material, analysis, effective communication and persuasion. Weigh the round. Road map. Use both line-by-line and big picture analysis. Know how to pronounce the words in your evidence. Know what your evidence says/means.
 * 1) Speed of Delivery
 * 1) How do analytical arguments weight against evidence based arguments?
 * 1) What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)?
 * 1) Is there anything else student/coaches should know about your judging philosophy (e.g., are there any substantive arguments you have biases for or against, etc.)