Ginzel,+Hahna

Ginzel, Hahna 1993 ginzelh@michigan.gov Coach a team, High School debater, College debater, Occasionally judge 7 Tabula Rasa > > > > > > > >
 * Judge Name**
 * High School Graduation Year **
 * Judge Email **
 * How would you describe your Policy Debate experience? **
 * How many rounds have you judged on this year's topic? **
 * What is the best descriptor of your judging style for policy debate? **
 * Judge Preferences **
 * **Rate of Delivery** Moderately Fast
 * ** Quality of Arguments **A Moderate Number
 * **Topicality** Rarely
 * **Counterplans** Usually acceptable
 * **Generic Disadvantages** Acceptable
 * **Conditional Negative Positions** Sometimes acceptable
 * **Debate Theory Arguments** Sometimes acceptable
 * **Kritik Arguments** Sometimes Acceptable
 * Please indicate your overall judging paradigm. **

Roadmap and sign post-I will flow where you tell me to, even if it doesn't make sense. Weigh the round-I won't do it for you. Understand and be able to explain your arguments. Be nice!

My name is Hahna Ginzel, and I am the debate coach for the new Kingsley High school debate team. I debated for 4 years in high school for Ann Arbor Community (which only had a team for 4 years), for 2 1/2 years (Policy and LD) at Central Michigan University, and a Semester (LD only) at Eastern Michigan University. I also attended UofM's debate camp as a high schooler, and judged high school league debates (and some tournaments) in 1993-1996. That said, however, it has been about 15 years since I last debated or judged policy debate, so be sure to explain newer arguments well, such as Kritiques and topical counter plans.
 * From 2011:**

I expect debaters to be polite. It's good to be confidant, but not rude or disrespectful of your opponents. Your speaker points will reflect this. Speed is fine, but if you are not ennunciating or I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" and expect you to slow down and/or be more clear. If I can't flow it, you did not say it. Sign posting and Road mapping are huge issues for me, also (mainly if you don't do it)!

Evidence format seems to be "Smith 1" for Smith 2001, which is fine with me, as long as you have the entire cite (authors name/credentials, publication, etc...) listed below it on your card if someone has questions. I have never read evidence after the round, I think debate is a speaking activity. If the debate is extremely close and the specifics of the evidence would win/lose the round, or if I think there is a problem with the evidence, I could potentially ask to read it.

I will listed to analytical arguments, as well as evidence. Of course, evidence is better, but if the other team points out problems with the evidence, these will be considered and must be answered. It is certainly possible to lose on analytics.

MIFA violations: I would generally enforce these by docking speaker points, depending on the violation, unless you do something extremely abusive.

Tag teaming is fine, as long as: 1. One partner is not doing all the work/answering all the questions and 2. It does not become distracting during a speech (for example, it's fine to hand your partner something during their speech or to say "go to T", but you should not be simply repeating your partners words through your whole speech and/or being constantly interrupted/asking for help).

I vote on any arguments you present if you make sense. I am primarily a Net win/loss judge. If the world looks better if I vote Aff, I will vote Aff, and vice versa. I also vote by my flow, so don't drop arguments in rebuttle (I will NOT pick them up later), or try to make new arguments, especially in the 2AR/2NR.

I vote on T if you win the argument, regardless of net win/loss. It is a stock issue. It has to be a good/complete argument, but if Affs drop it, and Negs consistently pull through/tell me why you won it, they will win on it even if I don't think the case is particularly non-topical. It's not my job to show why aff is topical.

I will listen to D.A's, Kritiques, Counter plans (Non Topical or Topical), etc... I try not to have "favorite" arguments, but expect you to tell me why I should/should not vote on something and whether something (Topical C-Ps, for example) is abusive. I will not vote on arguments that you have not explained well, and I will NOT do your work for you (for example, if you don't weigh the round, and your opponent does, there is a very good chance your opponent will win even if your impacts are potentially "worse". Or, if I don't understand your Kritique, I won't vote on it).

Paperless debating: I think it's a good thing, but I expect you to have a good, battery-powered viewing computer, and to not take too long to "flash" your cards/arguments to the other team. I will follow the guidelines set up for this tournament regarding it.

If you have questions about specific kinds of arguments, please ask before the round, while both teams are in the room, and I will be more than happy to answer any questions!!