Stivers,+Emily

Judge's Name: Stivers, Emily High School Graduation Date: 2000 Judge's e-mail: estivers@gmail.com Experience: - Coach a team - High School debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 20 Judge Paradigm: Games player Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 4 Relatively many Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 2 usually acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 3 sometimes acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 3 sometimes acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 2 usually acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: I take my role as a judge seriously and believe we are here to play the game of debate, and to learn about policy making, public speaking, philosophy, morality and other important subjects from this game. Protecting education -- both about the real world and how the game of debate should be played -- is a high priority for me as a judge.

I strive to be a line-by-line judge, but the debaters must explain an argument in order for me to vote on it. You don't really learn anything by winning on an argument you didn't understand, just because the other team dropped it. For example, "T is a voter" is not sufficient to win my ballot, even if the other team drops the entire violation; you must give me some reason why this deserves my ballot, and explain it consistently (e.g. it's not in my jurisdiction to vote for an untopical case, in-round abuse, etc.).

All arguments must be impacted, and impacts must be explained in every speech. If the 2AC or 1AR drops case, an advantage, or their moral imperative, it doesn't matter if the negative never attacked it; it's gone from the round. Brief extensions with more detailed explanation later in the round tend to be acceptable, e.g. "extend the Clark 07 evidence, plan causes global warming which leads to extinction" is probably enough ink on my flow in the 1AR to support a more thorough analysis in the 2AR.

I will vote for arguments I don't agree with or find silly (e.g. "blow up the moon," "global warming isn't real") as long as they are well-reasoned and inadequately refuted by the other team. I will NOT vote for arguments I find deeply offensive (e.g. "the Holocaust was good," "abusing women is good," "racism is good."). I will only intervene in those most extreme circumstances when I feel that education in the round is in serious danger.

I believe that the affirmative team should present a topical case. I have read about issues of race in debate and feel a deep sympathy for those who feel the resolution is racist at its core, 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). I appreciate the affirmative team's concerns, but it's not fair to the negative team to have to debate against a kritik instead of the resolution at a high school level of debate.

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.

In terms of speaker points, debaters should present themselves professionally, stand to speak, make eye contact with the judge, present thoughtful and well-organized arguments, and respect the rules of debate. Speed is fine, but clarity is critical. Prompting and tag-team CX are OK within reason, but I don't flow the non-speaker's words, and dominating your partner is going to come out of your speaks, not theirs. "Flashing" will not be timed, but if it takes more than a minute or two, that tells me you were not prepared for the round and speaker points may be deducted. Do not prep while the other team is flashing.

Any questions, please ask.

Ethics Statement: Agree