Marsh,+Chelsea


 * MIFA Judge Philosophy and Paradigm Information**

Name: Chelsea Marsh School: Albion College Position (e.g. Assistant Coach): n/a Judging Experience: Some HS experience. Other Affiliations/Preclusions: n/a Provide Email: cam17@albion.edu Year of High School Graduation: 2008 Name of High School: Elk Rapids High School

role as judge (e.g., to reward, to sanction behaviors).
 * Process Preferences**. What do you require debaters to do in a round and how do you view your

1. Briefly describe your view of proper debate etiquette and how you will evaluate/enforce deviations. Debate is an intellectual exchange. I am an observer and do not like to interfere much within the round. The only time in-round etiquette will affect the round itself is when MIFA rules are broken, or an individual/team is being unnecessarily nasty, mean, or abrasive. This usually results in a warning or a reduction in speaker points, but if the violations continue or become a concern with respect to the institution of debate, it may become a bigger concern. Basically, respect debate as an intellectual exchange and you're following the etiquette of the sport. Don't be mean, don't disrespect the other team or your teammate, and everyone will have a good time.

2. Evidence citations (what parts of the evidence do you require to be read aloud) The date (month, year) and author (credentials when necessary) should be sufficient.

3. Reading evidence after the round (under what conditions will you read evidence). If both teams make a point to argue about the content or context of the evidence and it is not clear to me based on their arguments what the evidence itself says, I may ask to see it. For the most part, I'd like to hear clear evidence (NO POWER-TAGGING) and debate centered around the intended and obvious meaning of the evidence. If this becomes unclear at any point and becomes the central focus of the debate in the rebuttal speeches, I will have no choice but to review the evidence for myself. Let me stress that this is not ideal and if there is confusion over the content of the evidence, the team would be better suited using more transparent evidence.

4. How do you enforce MIFA violations (e.g. dock speaker points, automatically give a loss, depends on what the debaters say, etc.)? My first inclination is to warn the offending team/individual when a violation has been made; if the problem persists, it will first affect speaker points and may, if the offense is egregious enough, determine the round. I will almost never stop a round or give an automatic loss, but I will start docking speaking points and may, if the opponent team brings it up as an argument, end up basing part of my decision on in-round conduct.

5. Tag Teaming (one person prompting his/her partner) A). During C/X NEVER B). During Speeches NEVER

Prep time is where teamwork happens. Do not interrupt your partner or help him/her during speeches. It is disruptive and against MIFA rules.


 * 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 tend to lean toward policy, but I am highly receptive to arguments persuading me to listen to different arguments. For this tournament, I classify myself as a tabula rosa judge and will listen to just about anything that is well-argued and understood.

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 have given low-point wins before and think they are more than possible. While presentation is invariably an important part of the debating process, I believe the key elements of the "sport" are the logic, arguments, and craftsmanship of your case. Ideally, debaters will keep their composure, be well-articulated, and employ a respectable amount of etiquette. This will not, however, affect my judging of the arguments unless you are incomprehensible, horribly rude, or abusive (and the other team argues this). So, while I think presentation is important and can be persuasive, I tend to see the argument more than the speakers when I am making a decision on the round.

have regarding:
 * Argument Preferences**– include how likely you are to vote and any predispositions you may

8. Topicality: I like topicality, but only when it is argued well. If you don't understand topicality as an argument or as a debate issue, don't bring it up. Also, since many teams tend to use it as a time-suck, I want to see topicality taken seriously; ideally, if you aren't committed to seeing the argument through to the rebuttal speeches, you won't bring it up. Same for extra-top and other similar arguments. As a TR judge, I'll listen to anything, but it must be well-supported.

9. Disadvantages: I love them. Links should be clear and not too convoluted. I vote on DAs if told to vote on them. Same as with topicality: please know the DA and its implications well. Power-tagging has been a problem, so make sure the evidence actually supports what you are saying.

10. Counterplans: A). Do counterplans need to be non-topical? I'd prefer them to be, but I'll listen to an argument supporting a topical CP.

B). What makes a counterplan legitimate? The CP should do a better job affirming the resolution than the affirmative team. This means it should prove better than any permutations, too. Typical interpretations of CPs follow.

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? Most importantly, understand the implications and arguments within the K. If you're running a kritik to intimidate the other team and do not understand what the author is talking about, it'll be painfully obvious and it'll be difficult for me to vote on. I urge you to run a K only if you fully understand what a K is and how the specific K you are running impacts the round and should be a voting issue.

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 am starting to repeat myself; if you understand it and can express it to me and your opponents in a comprehensible way, I'll listen to it and vote accordingly.

13. On case debates. Describe your inclination to vote on case arguments. What do debaters need to do to win case debate issues? Present your arguments in a clear, logical, and informative manner. I love on-case and think it can contain some of the most eloquent and well-structured arguments in a round. On-case should be analytically sound, supported by history or other common-sense evidence, and susceptible to further debate. I have seen affirmative cases demolished by on-case arguments and would love to see a return to this form!

Please comment – you can circle and/or explain your philosophy regarding the following:
 * Style and Performance**

13. Speed of Delivery (slower – equal to or less than conversation speed) (faster) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 __8__ 9 10 I can handle higher speeds if you are well-articulated. If you slur words or gasp a lot, I might ask you to slow down so I can keep up when I flow.

Will you indicate to the debaters if you need him/her to articulate more and/or change speed? If so, how? I will interrupt as non-intrusively as possible to ask you to slow down as frequently as I need to in order to flow the round. If the problem persists and I cannot understand you due to speed or articulation, it will affect speaker points.

14. How do analytical arguments weigh against evidence based arguments? Both can be devastating, but if disputed, evidence tends to win over even the best analytical arguments. That being said, I am a TR judge and will listen to reasons I should listen to analytical arguments with more than the usual rigor.

15. What is your view on new arguments in the 2NC (meaning new off-case attacks or case debates not initiated in the 1NC)? New in the 2NC, for me, is encouraged. It is still a constructive speech and is the perfect place for on-case arguments. I'd prefer no new off-case in the 2NC, but I am not particularly inclined to listen to abuse claims from the affirmative regarding on-case brought up in the 2NC.

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.)?

Bad things: shadowing, tag-teaming, running arguments you don't understand, being rude to other team, power-tagging, time-suck arguments. Good things: eye contact, calm composure, well-crafted arguments/cases, time-management, articulation, outline or strategy.