Wilhelm,+Mark

Name: Mark Wilhelm School: Petoskey High School Judging Experience: 3 Years Provide Email: marktw@umich.edu Year of High School Graduation: 2008 Name of High School: Petoskey High School
 * MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information **


 * 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. //

Remember that debate is a speaking and thinking competition. Be respectful, but also have fun.

//2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) //

Author, Credentials, Date

//3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). //

If you want me to read something, it is necessary to ask me in-round. However, asking does not mean I will look at it. I will only look at it if there is a question about the authenticity or proper representation.

//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 the violation. I generally will dock speaker points, unless it is a //major// infraction. Then I may give an automatic loss.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">A). During C/X // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">B). During Speeches //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Do not do it. I will dock speaker points for the entire team each time.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">6. Would you characterize yourself as having a particular paradigm you consistently default to? // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">If so, what is it and what does this mean to you? Would you ever vote in a different // //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">paradigm? If so, when and why? //
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Paradigm and Argument Preferences **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I see myself as a policy making judge. I expect the Affirmative to meet their burden of proof and I also expect the Negative to provide reasons why not to enact the Affirmative plan. I will listen to other paradigm arguments (if you want me to judge on stock issues, tell me why) but lacking those persuasive arguments, I will default to a policy maker.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">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? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Debate is both about presentation and content. They are equally important. While content may be first in my mind, the only way that I get content is through presentation. Speak, read, and argue in a manner that not only advances your argument, but allows me to understand it. That does not mean the best speakers always win, but it will significantly help your cause if I can understand and follow what you are saying.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Argument Preferences **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding:

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. Topicality/General Procedure: //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I understand the value (both strategically and to debate in general) but do not like to vote on them. If you plan to carry through T or one of the “general procedure” arguments (X-T, FX-T, F-Spec, etc.) there needs to be actual in-round abuse. Standards need to be clear (and well argued) along with voters for me to even consider voting.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. Disadvantages: //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">DAs need to be specific to the case. I will rarely vote on non-specific DAs that can be run on any case. That being said, they are a very good Negative tool.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. Counterplans: //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Must be non-topical. Must have a clear advantage. Argue anything else out.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">11. Kritiks: //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I will not vote on a Kritik. Do not try to disguise them as a DA.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">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.)? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">In general, I will allow you to argue out these ideas. However, I prefer not to vote on or listen to a theory debate. There is a resolution for a reason. Debate the resolution.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">On case is very good and I will vote on it. To win these arguments, show the effectiveness of the argument. Offense is much better than defense.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Style and Performance **

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">13. Speed of Delivery (slower – equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">1 2 3 4 5 6 **__7__** 8 9 10

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I will set down my pen and stop listening to the debate. Speed itself does not bother me. Clarity is essential. If you are fast and unclear I will stop writing. If you are slow and unclear, I will also stop writing. I need to hear all of the words of your evidence, not just the tags. If you are unsure whether you are going too fast, slow down.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">14. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Analytical arguments are an important part of debate. That being said, if two arguments are in direct competition (one evidenced and one not) I will tend to prefer the evidenced arguments.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">15. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">New on-case is fine. New off-case is not okay. Do not just outline an off-case argument in the 1NC and continue it in the 2NC. I will not vote on it.

//<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">16. 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.)? //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I tend to believe that C-X is an ignored part of the debate, yet probably the most important. It is the only chance that you have to directly engage your opponent. Please make the most of the opportunity. I do listen to C-X, despite the fact that I do not flow it. And I do believe that C-X is only fair if it is binding. Do not try to make an argument that it is not binding; you will not win it.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I also do not stop prep-time until you are giving me your roadmap. If you are clearly using your roadmap to use prep that is not charged, I will tell you that I am charging more prep. If you do not have any left, I will use part of your speech time. This is not to penalize you, it is to make sure that you are using your time fairly and effectively.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Any other questions, please ask before the round starts.