Page,+Frank

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information Name: Frank Page School: No currenty affiliation Graduated from Marshall 1984 Eastern Michigan 1990 Position: N/A Co-Coach Judging Experience: 26 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: None Provide Preferred Method of Contact (Email/Phone): fobpage@yahoo.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. Mutual respect is vital. Profanity, excessive sarcasm used to belittle the other team, discriminatory behavior, personal attacks are unacceptable. I will lower speaking points, give loses (for unethical use of evidence) and contact coaches. 2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) Name, date (year). Credentials are also desirable. I don’t want to hear publications, page numbers or urls. 3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). Rarely, but if ethical issues arise or there is a dispute on an important issue regarding what a card’s text actually says. 4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? Debaters must raise the issue in the round. I won’t exact penalties without a verbal warning first. I almost never dock points. I won’t automatically give a loss under any circumstances. Mostly verbal admonitions. 5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X B). During Speeches For both, I allow some prompting but excessive prompting will result in a decrease in speaker points for both partners. I will never give a loss for prompting. 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 primarily vote by comparing the advantages vs. the disadvantages. I will vote on topicallity. On extratopicallity I will throw out an advantage but will not automatically award a win. Very rarely vote on inherency. 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 award the win to the best policy option and very rarely give more points to the losing team. About the only time I would give higher points to the losing team would be if the winning team was very rude, or said very inappropriate things. Argument Preferences– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: 8. Topicality: I will vote on topicallity. On extratopicallity I will throw out an advantage but will not automatically award a win

9. Disadvantages: I look for a strong link and good line-by-line should accompany the overall story. You can still win a disad and lose, of course, if advantages outweigh it. 10. Counterplans: A) Do counterplans need to be non-topical? Will not consider voting on a counter plan if it is topical. B) What makes a counterplan legitimate? The negative must successfully prove the counterplan is net beneficial. I will, of course, listen to theory debates on topicality, plan inclusivity, conditionality and dispositional, fiat, etc. 11. Kritiks: A) Will you/do you vote on kritiks? B) If yes, what does the team running a kritik need to do to win the argument? An implication (policy, pre-fiat/discourse, deonotolical) which indicates why the K is more important than or outweighs case benefits. 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, but rarely. It must be well presented and clearly stated. 13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? I almost never vote without some offense (i.e. case turns. Solvency, harm, and inherency takeouts may mitigate but don’t eliminate all of case benefits. Style and Performance Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: 13. 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? Speed is fine but you need to enunciate. If I can't understand you I will put my pen down until you say something that I can understand.

14. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? A combination of analytical and evidenced arguments is often best. It depends… evidence indictments are fine. Some analytics make more sense, even without cards. 15. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? I won’t disregard “new in the two,” but I prefer the 1NC to contain all major negative positions. I will give the 1AR substantial leeway in answering such arguments in terms of grouping, cross applications and speed. 16. Is there anything else students/coaches should know about your judging philosophy I strongly believe that debate should be about the advanatages vs. the disadvantages. Prove that your position is the net advantage and you will get my vote 99% of the time.