Topczewska,+Ola

__Ola Topczewska__ I debated for four years for Walter Payton high school in Chicago on the regional and national circuits, and occasionally judged JV rounds for the CDL
 * Background:** Walter Payton '11, Harvard '15.

-Run what you like and feel comfortable with. I will listen fairly to whatever you have to say, provided you make warranted articulate arguments.
 * General**:

-My experience with the space topic is limited. It is to your advantage to explain obscure topic-specific acronyms. General debate jargon is fine

-Speed is also fine, although clarity and organization will be reflected in speaker points. Be esp. clear on CP text/alt texts/plan texts. I will yell if I can't understand you. consistent line-by-line is a must.

- im a fan of meta-level framing and impact calc. final rebuttals should provide a lens through which to view the round

-I expect you to treat each other with basic respect and honesty; dont harass your opponents, use offensive language, steal prep, clip cards or cross read. If in doubt, just dont.

Don't spread through theory blocks. I presume 'reject the argument not the team'. I will vote on theory, but you need to invest the time and flesh out your arguments for why its a voter
 * Theory**

I tend to lean neg on condo, although abuse is magnified by each additional conditional 'world' (eg k alt or cp). contradictory advocacies are especially abusive
 * Conditionality**

CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. Pics are generally acceptable provided there is a solvency advocate. Teams that replace a certain word should read evidence supporting the distinction in the context of the plan
 * PICs**

I lean aff on theory here. If you want to run this on the neg, specific solvency evidence/ say yes evidence is key. These types of CPs are also pretty vulnerable to perms.
 * Conditions/Consult CPs-**

Im probably not going to vote on your 5 second 1nc aspec shell. Use that time to read more evidence on a position you might actually go for
 * ASPEC/ other pointless spec args**

Contextual interpretations with high-quality evidence go a long way here. Affs need counter interps. Explaining what the debate world would look like under your interp vs. theirs is key. case lists are a big help for either side.
 * Topicality**

run them. Link and i/L questions are critical and should be fleshed out. Politics can be effective and interesting, although you should pull apart distinctions in the evidence rather than saying 'we read 10 uniqueness cards, they read 8, we should win' While i understand the strategic value of making blippy intrinsicness/ fiat takes out the link arguments in the ptx 2ac, be sure that you say enough to constitute an actual argument
 * DAs**

I ran and answered Ks throughout my debate career, but Ill be honest and admit Im no expert on k literature. Especially obscure ks (Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, etc) demand particular explanation. In general having strong and specific links is crucial. Negs should reference particular parts of the 1ac and set up links in crossx
 * Ks**

I not easily swayed by buzzwords- you need to explain what your evidence talks about and apply it to the particular plan. I don't know what vague alts like 'resist' or 'deconstruct' mean- you need to explain these as well.

Affs should not be afraid to impact turn the K. Perms with clearly articulated nbs can also be winning strategies.

In past debates Ive judged, framework often ends up as a wash. By all means bring it up but also invest time in substantive answers. 'Reps first' type arguments should be used in impact calc. Im not likely to buy 'reject the K' type arguments without significant work by the aff. Absent an alternative framework, I presume that the judge is a individual choosing between two competing worlds based on their merits.
 * Framework**

I am willing to listen and vote on performance affs, but you should keep in mind that -- I am easily convinced that affs must present a plan text to test the resolution --however flawed it may be, I do think debate has educational and other benefits
 * Non-traditional teams/ k-affs:**

K-affs that claim advantages based on policy implementation are entirely fine.


 * good luck and have fun!**

If I judged you and you have questions about the round, feel free to email me at __atopczewska (at) college (dot) harvard (dot) edu__