MacGregor,+Samantha+A.

MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information

Name: Samantha A. MacGregor School: Petoskey High School Position: Judge Judging Experience: 5 years Other Affiliations/Preclusions: Petoskey High School debater 4 years; Judging 2 years out of high school; judged at least 20 rounds this season

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). Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations. The point of debate is to be educational. Treating your opponents with respect is very important. You should conduct yourself professionally. I will deduct speaker points for abusive behavior in rounds. Evidence citations. I require that debaters clearly read evidence citations. These can become very important in the round. Mainly what is heard is evidence tag lines but it does not necessarily mean what the evidence actually states. So make sure it is VERY clear where your evidence comes from. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). I will read evidence after the round if it is questioned in the round and is clearly going to be a deciding factor for the round. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? For the educational aspect of what debate is all about…I do follow MIFA rules when the rules apply. In my experience I have docked speaker points for MIFA rule violations. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) During C/X During Speeches I believe that there is no need for tag teaming whatsoever. Don't even think about doing it at all during the round. Each speaker has their own speech for a reason. I also believe it takes away from the round by making it distracting and confusing. Paradigm and Argument Preferences 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 am a stock issues and/or policy judge. I vote maily on Harms, Inherecy, Solvency AND Topicality. The Affirmative has the burden of proof to explain why plan is needed rather than status quo. If Negative can effectively argue a D/A I have voted for them because Impacts outweigh the harms of case drastically. 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? It is very important to me that debate is EDUCATIONAL. The most persuasive team with the better arguments( which are made clear by the debater to be the better arguments) tends to win the round. I give low point wins to teams who can effectively convey their position yet tend to tag team/prompt their partner and/or are rather disrespectful to opponents in round. Argument Preferences – include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may have regarding: Topicality: I will vote on topicality with complete content( definition, violation, standards and voters that are explained). Running topicality as a time suck and then dropping it later in the round takes away from the education of the debate. Disadvantages: I will vote D/A's that are ran well and effectively. If they are ran they need to be explained well and actually link to the case. Running D/A's that do not actually link to the case leads to a debate with virtually no clash. Prove why the Impacts ARE really something to be compelled about. Counterplans: I don't vote on Counterplans. None have actually been run effectively. Kritiks: Will you/do you vote on kritiks? If yes, what does the team running kritik need to do to win the argument? No. 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.) I believe that theory is 1) never developed enough by debaters in a round and 2) do not fully understand the theory they are trying to argue. It tends to create much confusion in the debate. Mainly, theory becomes a time suck so that the opposing team cannot effectively answer arguments and takes away from the true meaning of debate. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? I am very disposed to vote on case arguments. To me these are very important. If the negative can present effective arguments WITH evidence I tend to agree with those arguments and vote on them. Style and Performance Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following: Speed of Delivery In debate you are to be a persuasive public speaker. In order to do so, you need to speak clearly and articulatly. Clearly reading tags and babbling the rest of the card is not effective. Quality speeches that are WELL understood are the most effective. Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? I will verbally say "Clearer"…if it continues I will set down my pen meaning arguments are not being flowed. How do analytical arguments weight against evidence based arguments? Analytical arguements can be effective in the round over arguements with evidence if it is shown why the analytical arguement is superior. For the most part though, arguments with evidence hold the most weight in the round. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? New arguments in the 2NC are completely fine since it is a constructive speech. As for off case arguements in the 2NC…I do not believe that these arguements can be effectively ran or answered in the round if ran in the 2NC. 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.) In a debate I do not like Kritiks at all. Counterplans are never effectively ran, don't like them. I believe strongly that debate is educational as well as professional and debaters should conduct themselves in that manner. Be prepared and don't read stuff just to read it…understand what you are reading.