Fraser,+Katie

**Note:** I have not judged very much on the China topic, but I am familiar with much of the literature from past years. However, I'm not familiar with the consensus the community has reached on issues like topicality this year.
 * Name ** Katie Fraser
 * Experience ** Debated Four years at Lexington high school (National circuit experience - Qualified to the TOC twice, got to Elims of almost all octos bids, finalist at St. Marks, etc), Currently an Assistant Coach at Lexington High School, and an HCMUD (Harvard College Mentors for Urban Debate) mentor

I will try to take the least interventionist way out. If the debate is at all close, I will definitely read cards after the round; however, you need to explain your arguments – I will not vote on things that are in your cards but not in your speech. Speaker points will be higher if you give me a clean debate with an easy way out. For the most part I default to offense defense, however, I feel very comfortable voting on a legitimate presumption argument. There is no "risk of a link" unless you win one. Unless there is a logical connection, the risk of one part of a DA being true does not affect the other part. And, I would very, very strongly prefer you read a topical plan. If this is a concern of yours, you should definitely read below. I have a terrible poker face, so look at me if you want to know how I’m reacting. And, If I stop flowing, you should probably change something. It likely means you are either repetitive or I don't understand you. Don’t steal prep. Don’t be mean. Don’t cheat. Don’t clip cards. Ask me if you have any questions.
 * Overview **

C lipping is defined as when a debater represents they have more than one line of evidence that they did not read in any speech. Please ask teams to clarify in CX what they read before you call an ethics violation, and only follow through if your opponent can't accurately mark their cards in CX. If an accusation of an ethics violation is made, I will stop the round. If the accusation is determined to be accurate I will drop the team that violated said rule, and the debaters who did so will receive zeros. If it is blatantly clear that there was no violation, I will drop the team that made the accusation and give them zeros. Ethics violations are a serious accusation that can destroy a debater's reputation, and false ones will not be tolerated. If I believe evidence is insufficient and or the circumstances of the violation don't warrant dropping the team (ie. novices who don't know what clipping is), I will request that the round be continued and adjust speaker points accordingly. Keep in mind though - the purpose of ethics violations is to preserve the best vision of our activity. If you think your ethics violation does not help preserve that vision and is purely for competitive purposes (ie. accidentally skipping one line in one card and pointing it out after the speech), the accuser will also get zero points.
 * Ethics violations and clarity **

If I start to suspect a team is clipping, I will mark last words that I hear read, and will consider that sufficient evidence for clipping. However, if an accusation is made after the fact, I need a recording to determine the accuracy of your statements. That means you have to be clear. Very clear. I want to hear every word in the text of every one of your cards. I will call clear a limited number of times - after that I will blatantly stop flowing - and if you don't notice that isn't my problem.

Framing is super important. Debates, no matter what they are about (the K, framework, a DA vs. Case, or T) need comparative impact calculus. Every debate should have framing for why I should vote for each team - and that should address the ways you think you could lose the debate as well. Each section of the debate should have framing issues and answer the other teams framing issues. Frame your evidence for me.
 * Framing **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I have to say I’m surprised by how polarized my speaker points are. I’m okay with aggressive (if it’s productive and gets you somewhere in the debate round), but don’t be overly mean. Smart CX and capitalizing on the other team’s mistakes will also help your points. In front of me, the single most important way to get good speaker points is to make smart arguments and point out logical inconsistencies in the other teams arguments. Stealing prep has been a huge problem in rounds I’ve judged and speaks will suffer from it.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Speaker Points: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I vote on anything. That being said, your speaks will not be good if you do not contextualize the k to the aff. Meta analysis in K debates is important, but so is line-by-line. Keep overviews short. I always look at the framework debate first because it frames how I should evaluate the rest of the debate. I don't care what framework you read, but if well debated I find the aff usually gets to weigh their impacts. That being said, they still have to win their impacts are true. Also, Ks need an alternative that resolves their impacts. That can be a framework argument, but I need to be able to coherently explain to the other team what should be done to resolve the specific impact. I'm less likely to vote on silly K tricks than the substance of the K, and absent explanation floating PIKs can't solve the impacts they criticize, though they can solve the aff's other impacts.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kritiks **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I am deeper into the literature on some Ks than others. For the most part I'm ok on IR Ks and understand some race theory arguments, but I don't know very much about high theory. Explaining your arguments will get you much further in front of me than assuming I know jargon. That doesn't mean you have to reexplain the technical parts of the K - it does mean that you shouldn't assume I'm familiar with technical distinctions that exist in the literature. If I don’t understand your K by the 2nr I won’t read into your evidence to figure it out. Both sides should slow down a little in K debates -- Spreading philosophy at 400 words a minute will not leave either of us happy after I write the ballot.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">My biggest problems with most K affs is the race to claim large impacts that you don't solve. Even absent claiming large impacts, I think most of these affs radically oversimplify complicated systemic issues. The aff needs to solve, otherwise I'll vote on presumption.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">K Affs **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Being a woman in STEM has made me much more aware of the necessity of intersectionality. If your aff claims that sexism does not exist/matter, that you can solve it by doing something simple and stupid, or tries to privilege some forms of systemic oppression as being by definition "worse" than others, **please strike me**. I think the arguments that certain groups of people can't participate in debate tend to be extremely essentializing and am unlikely to vote for them. This is especially true in the context of arguments that women can't participate in traditional debate. Honestly, I find these arguments offensive and it is unlikely you will get higher than a 26 if you tell me that a. no women can debate the topic or b. your aff solves the oppression women face in debate. These arguments actively discourage women from participating in traditional debate and that is not ok.

Specific strategies are always good. A<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">ffirmatives that don't read a plan should definitely be responsive for the language in their advocacy text, and probably the entirety of the 1ac. (If there is no advocacy statement, the aff should be responsible for every word they said in the 1ac). If debate is about competing performances than the aff probably doesn't get a perm. I hate affect arguments.

//**Clash of civilizations debates**// I've been out of the activity for a while which has changed my perspective on these debates. Debate no longer forms as much a part of my identity as it used to, which means I evaluate these debates in a much more detached way. That being said, I still believe reading a topical plan is essential to preserving debate and will absolutely vote on framework if it is well debated. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I don't care what impact you go for. Keep in mind that __i//t is nearly impossible to win that progress is impossible, likewise it is non-negotiable that violence is bad. If your argument relies on either of these claims please strike me.//__ **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Both teams need to be respectful of each other's experiences. **

A couple of substantive notes: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">-Negs should defend things on framework. They get to impact turn what you defend. Deal with it. -Framework is not policing. Asking you to play by rules is not the same as being put in a chokehold or shot at the border. You're privileged to be here - don't trivialize other people's oppression for the sake of a ballot. For the negative - these arguments can and should be made into an independent voting issue

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I tend to default to rejecting the argument (except for condo) unless I am told a convincing reason why voting against the team matters. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">There is way too much of a proliferation of stupid voters -- If there's no warrant, I will not vote on it even if it is dropped, and will give you very little leeway extending it. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">If you want to win a theory debate, don’t leave any outs – answer every argument on the line by line. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Make sure you have offense on theory just like any other argument.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Theory **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I've always found the reasonability/competing interpretation debate a little murky and rather irrelevent. A good T violation should always win that the aff isn't reasonable - otherwise substantive crowdout and arbitrariness outweighs a tiny limits DA. That being said, reasonability has never really made sense to me because I'm not sure how to determine what's "good" for the topic without making a comparison. For affs, winning reasonability means you have to win an interpretation that is good for the topic - the link on topicality is a yes/no question - you can't be "reasonably topical." Affs need offense on T. Both sides should clearly articulate specific impacts to all of their internal links. And, "education" as an umbrella term isn't a thing. Research skills, advocacy skills, and economic knowledge, are things. Specific impacts are much better than broad impacts. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">If you want me to vote for you on T, you need to clearly articulate to me specific impacts and do impact calculus like you would on any disad – what link turns can’t you read because of the aff? What parts of the literature do you have to research? What generic CPs and DAs don’t you get because of the aff? Etc. (Minor caveat –if it’s dropped, I’ll be more ok with a skimpier T debate, but it would be nice if you could still impact it a little. If the aff drops T and you don’t extend your standards, you have also functionally dropped T too and I ignore it). And, in case I ever judge LD, as every policy debater ever knows interpretations have to be from contextual evidence, and RVIs aren't a thing. Ever. I will not give above a 26 if you try to go for an RVI, no matter how awesome the rest of the debate was. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">SPEC arguments are stupid – I will be sad if you read them.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Topicality **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I tend to default neg on counterplan theory unless debated out otherwise. I think that counterplans with specific solvency advocates are almost always legitimate, CPs with generic solvency advocates can be legitimate, and CPs without solvency advocates should be rejected. If you're aff and want to win a theory debate on a CP, make theory violations as specific to the counterplan as possible.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Counterplans **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">:

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Presumption goes to the least change from the status quo – that means the aff doesn’t have to win a net benefit to the permutation if there actually is zero risk of a net benefit <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Conditionality means I can kick the CP/K alt for you unless otherwise specified in the debate. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Permutations are not capitalized on nearly enough by the aff – if you want to win a perm in front of me you need to explain what the world of the perm looks like __from the 2ac on__ <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">The block doesn’t get new Ks, CPs, DAs, or Impact turns (an exception is you can impact turn 2ac impacts). I have voted on them but it makes me very, very sad …don’t do it. They don't get new CPs even if new add-ons are read. That is the disadvantage to advantage CPs. Live with it. That being said, obviously evidence can and should be read up through the 1ar, and possibly in the 2nr if it is in response to new 1ar cards. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I have always been a 2n. I tend not to give 2as that much leeway – If it wasn’t in the 1ar, it is a new argument and won’t be evaluated. That being said – I’m very fond of techy, embedded clash in a 1ar and so a __warranted__ argument that is 5-7 words in the 1ar can be blown up in the 2ar.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Random **