Stivers,+Emily


 * Judge Name:** Stivers, Emily
 * Email:** **estivers@gmail.com**

Former high school debater (Groves, class of ‘00), John S. Knight champion (2000), state tournament semi-finalist. Assistant coach for Mona Shores in early 2000s. Currently assistant coach for Okemos HS.
 * Experience**

B.A. in International Relations with minors in Gender Studies and Economic Development from James Madison College at MSU ('03). Masters in Public Policy with focus on Middle Eastern Studies from U-M ('08). Worked in Washington, DC for the United Nations Foundation and the ONE Campaign on global poverty issues. Currently employed with a Lansing-based nonprofit that helps underprivileged youth develop college- and career-readiness.
 * Background**

Tabula Rasa within reason; games player; educator.
 * Judging Paradigm**

We are here to play the game of debate, through which we learn about policymaking, public speaking, philosophy, morality and other important subjects. If nobody learns anything, the round is a failure.

I strive to be a line-by-line judge, and must be able to draw a clear line of an argument through every speech or else it is dropped. If it's not on my flow, it's not in the round, so pay attention and adapt if my pen stops moving. I will let you know if speed or clarity become problems.

I will vote for arguments I know are untrue, find silly, or don’t agree with (e.g. "blow up the moon," "global warming isn't real") as long as they are explained, impacted, and of course inadequately refuted by the other team. If they don’t point out you’re wrong, it’s not my job to do it for them. Also, if you don’t clearly explain why you win, chances are you lose (at least the argument if not the round). Tell me what happens when I vote aff vs. what happens when I vote neg. “We win because” plus three reasons is a great way to start your final rebuttal.

The "within reason" means I may intervene if neither team gives me a reason to vote, or if you make deeply offensive arguments (e.g. "abusing women is good," "racism is good").

> > >
 * **Topicality:** Generally an a priori voting issue. I’m big on vocabulary, grammar and the importance of language, so I don’t mind a debate of interpretations and standards. Unless both teams agree before the round and get my permission to debate something other than the resolution, the affirmative team should present a topical case. I am sympathetic to those who feel the resolution is problematic, but until we can come up with better, more inclusive resolutions, we are here to play the game of debate and the affirmative should at least initially defend the resolution (perhaps they can find a way to strategically "kick" their case and defend a position they find morally suitable, later in the round). That said, if the negative doesn't make these arguments effectively in the round, I WILL vote for a case I don't believe is topical. I do not intervene on topicality.
 * **Theory:** You’d better really commit to a theory argument and be clear about the implications (do I reject the argument? The team? Why?) if you want to win it. I hate rapid-fire theory spreads and tend to flow them poorly.
 * **Counterplans:** Will vote on. Prefer unconditional and competitive. Haven’t heard any good CPs on this topic yet.
 * **Kritiks:** I take Ks, and morality in general, seriously. I do not like conditional Ks or performative contradictions. "Do nothing" is a weak alt. I am amenable to permutations.

Speed is generally fine, but speak clearly and emphasize your most important points. Present yourself professionally. Be respectful and kind. Be consistent and unconditional in your advocacy during the round. Make eye contact. Be excessively clear about where I should flow your words; roadmap, sign-post and number your arguments. Impact your arguments and weigh the round clearly and concisely; use if-then statements to tell me what my ballot means. Don’t prompt or tag-team. Be prepared for the round, and minimize flashing time. If you’re debating an inferior team, help them to learn and understand so they can improve. Don't rely on strategies that spread, trick, or mislead the other team. Clash directly with their arguments. Win because you debated exceptionally well, not because the other team debated poorly. Use tasteful, appropriate humor. Be creative with analogies and illustrations. Teach me something I didn't know before.
 * How to get a 30**