Paolella,+David

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information Name: David Paolella School: Dexter High School Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): Assistant Coach Judging Experience: 1st year Other Affiliations/Preclusions: Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone): davidpa@umich.edu 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. I like judging a round in which all of the debaters are civil to each other. I will evaluate deviations based on the context and severity of the deviation, usually by docking speaker points. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) Author's last name and date. 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). I will only read evidence if it is crucial to the decision. I don't like reading evidence, but will if it is necessary. 4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? It depends on what the debaters say. I would be hesitant to ever automatically give a loss based on a MIFA violation, but I can see some situations in which I would. 5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X B). During Speeches I am generally ok with tag teaming. 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 do my best to be Tabula Rosa. I will vote on almost any argument (arguments like time cube don't hold too much weight with me). 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 in debate. Communication/persuasiveness are nice, but won't win you rounds without good, well-explained arguments. I would give a low-point win if the worse team won on a technicality, or if I docked speaker points for rudeness, etc. Argument Preferences– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: I enjoy topicality debates that are in-depth and relevant. Neg will have to not only prove the violation, but also the impact of the violation. 9. Disadvantages: Disadvantage/case debates are my favorite. 10. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? No B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? That is up to the debaters to decide. I may think a CP is unfair, but I won't vote on it unless the affirmative wins that it is unfair. 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? Win the link, impact, and alt. I think the links are often ignored, but they shouldn't be. If the other team is running a kritik, contest the link, impact, and alt using logical analytics and carded evidence. I understand some kritiks, but not all. If I don't understand the kritik at the end of the round, I will not vote on it, so explain it well. 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 will vote on theory arguments that are well explained and impacted. 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debateissues? Case is very important. If a team goes for a disad, they almost have to go for case as well (or else case will usually outweigh). I love case debates. 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? It is not so much speed that is important to me, but clarity. If you are not clear, I will tell you to be more clear twice. After that, you are lucky if I am still flowing you. 15. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? I love analytical arguments. Use your brain. 16. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? 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.)? Have fun!