Hock,+Lily

I'm most familiar with gender, colonialism, and flowing.
 * Background: ** Policy Debate (3 Years - 2013-2016) at Millard North High School; went to the ToC my senior year. I help out Minneapolis Washburn.

Email: lilyhock797@gmail.com

**General: **Rounds on the 2016-2017 policy topic: 10 I'm interested in whatever you do best; debate is meant to be educational and necessitating you run/try to run what I "like" would corrupt that; I don't want to see you fumble something you're only running because I'm judging you. The more specifc and strategic you are, the higher your speaker points will be and the more I will be interested in the round. I do not vote on tagline or author extensions - you need a warrant for every argument. I vote on what was said in the debate. If I call cards at the end of the round, I use it only to give advice during my RFD if the card was explained insufficiently or could be used better.

**AFFs: **I don't care what you do as long as you have a mechanism to resolve the harms of the 1AC throughout the entire debate. If there's been no mention of what the AFF does in each speech, I'll need a reason why I shouldn't vote NEG on presumption. So please, at least briefly explain the AFF. Stay away from jargon or clearly explain it. If I can't understand what you're doing or what your AFF is saying it makes it easier for me to vote on things like fairness. If you are condescending while explaining your AFF in cross-ex you'll lose speaker points (My threshold for this is not low - but just a note please don't be rude about it). If someone asks multiple times to explain the same aspect - try answering different ways, it's not like the practice will hurt.

**Framework: ** As a debater I hated it, but as a judge I think questions of how debate should operate are integral to debate itself. That being said: 1) I have a high threshold for voting on fairness unless the AFF cannot resolve its own impacts and/or has no relation to the topic. To win on fairness, I need a very clear internal link story with specific examples from the 1AC that prove the AFF uniquely increases the amount of abuse in debate.  2) I value education impacts the most when it comes to framework. Be specific to the AFF and explain how engaging the state would be necessary to resolve the harms of the 1AC. A lot of debaters on both sides like to pretend debate exists in a vacuum, so the strongest arguments are those that link state engagement to real world, historical, impacts. If ground is your internal link, analyze the educational benefits of your lost ground vs. the ground they offer. 3) Answer the AFF - simply saying framework is a procedural won't shortcirucit the AFF's offense usually - depending on the AFF.  <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Etiquette: Framework in a vaccuum is cool to me, but my problem is that it's implementation often becomes paternalistic or exclusionary. If I vote for framework - I am not voting that the AFF "should be kicked out of debate" but rather that it is ineffective in its current state. Remember that; I find it unacceptable to treat teams like they should not have access to debate because of what they run. Treating each other terribly/being rude in round does not make your arguments more convincing - that applies to everyone.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Topicality: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">If you're running more than one - make sure to have a case list that meet both definitions. If there are multiple interpretations for one term - comparative analysis will decide the debate for me.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Theory: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Performative contradictions - I don't know if you'd put this under your theory argument umbrella, but I think this can become extrordinarily offensive if you don't nip it in the bud. PIC/PIK - This I evaluate on a line-by-line basis so make sure you don't only stick to your theory blocks if it becomes an issue. Condo - if you have a specific number of off-case that is not abusive, I need a reason that number is not arbitrary; my condo threshold is inversley proportional to the offcase run (if there are less off-case I have a higher threshold - the threshold lowers after 3 or 4). <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Slow down on your theory block about 5% so I can flow each argument if they're super short. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">For LD - theory is evaluated on a case by case basis.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Counterplans/DAs: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;"> Any are good. I think actor and conditions counterplans for the China Policy topic are good.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Kritiques: **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt;">Kicking the alt is a little risky in front of me depending on how the debate goes down. If you kick the alt - you need to prove why the AFF is a unique increase in the impact to the link. I will vote on presumption if you have solvency turns and deficits specific to the AFF along with impact analysis.