Frazer,+Lani

Updated for 2017/2018 topic

 **About me** - I debated for 4 years in high school (SVDP in Petaluma, CA) and briefly at UC Berkeley. I studied Political Science and Gender and Women's Studies, and I currently work in intellectual property litigation at a law firm. I do some occasional judging for Sonoma. I have not worked at any summer institutes or done much coaching recently, so I am not included in the "community consensus" in T debates, and also do not know any topic specific terms/acronyms.

 **General** - PLEASE do not flash and use email chains/pocket box whenever possible. Prep ends when you click send. I would like to be included on the email chain (lanikathrynfrazer@gmail.com). Do not be racist, sexist, ableist, classist, etc. - I will not vote for you and I will tell your coach. My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best, and I will follow. You may know me as a K debater, but I am still familiar with policy and I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical.

 **Specifics** - I will vote on topicality. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. Reasonability is a compelling argument to me. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Be slow, clear, and do more than read the shell. I mostly judge debates where affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Framework read against a K aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. T or framework can be read against an aff that doesn't do anything, particularly if the aff is shifty or refuses to answer cx questions about what they do. But generally, I believe that K and nontraditional affs have an effect on our world, and the neg should do something other than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. The best strategy on framework against these affs is providing a creative topical version, and explaining why policymaking better solves the harms. The recent trend of high school debaters copying arguments from a college wiki and reading high theory that they can't explain is a bad educational model. Even if I recognize the argument, I will know if you cannot explain it yourself. I am familiar with a variety of critical arguments, from D&G to bell hooks. But you should still never assume that I know something and always explain and be specific. I do not default to being a policymaker or anything in particular. It's up to you to tell me what my ballot means. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. If you have access needs you'd like me to be aware of or want to inform me of your pronouns before the debate, please shoot me an email.