Ogata,+Christian

Christian Ogata

Background info:

3 years of policy debate at Centennial High School (ID)

Junior debating at UNLV

3 Week Lab Leader for the RDI (2014 & 2015) 10+ Rounds on the Surveillence topic Updated: 2/3/16 Yes I want to be on the email chain. ogata.christian@gmail.com


 * Overview:**

-Do whatever you are best at/most comfortable with, just make sure you can justify it and communicate it well enough for me to sign my ballot in your favor.

-Speed is cool. That being said, you should be fast but you should be clear. I would much rather have you go slower and develop your arguments

-Don't time flashing, but don't steal prep/waste time or I will

-I think debate is a great activity and should be an inclusive and fun. This means you should probably not (as well as outside of the debate space) advance racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic or morally repugnant arguments or language.


 * K-Affs and Framework:**

-Do what you want. I do however think that you should advance an answer to the resolution. Whether that means you affirm it, affirm an action in the direction of the resolution or criticize it, have a justification for it.

-In my first two years of college debate, I read anything from a critical identity aff about internment, a Bataille aff, and an aff about Asian Americans. This past year, I have read two policy affs and a settler colonialism aff and gone for Framework several times. Thus, it can be said that I can be persuaded by a substantive framework argument. I think you need to resolve what my ballot should do, what debate should be like, the discussions we should have and why your impact outweighs. -I am persuaded by Topical Versions of the Aff arguments if they are (a) actually topical and (b) provide the aff an ability to have the discussion they want while still defending this version of the aff. -Talk about what you want, just have a defense of it.


 * Topicality**

-Debate topicality like a disad i.e. explain your standards as internal links to terminal impacts

-I will default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded by a thoroughly explained reasonability argument.

-Tell me what the topic looks like in a world of your interpretation vs theirs. This includes listing affs that your interp allows or justifies. Don't be ridiculous with these, but explain why they are actually possible under the aff's interpretation.


 * Counterplans**

-Counterplans are cool and you should deploy them. I think they are especially important when debating affs with big impacts.

-I will not kick the counterplan for you unless you make a judge choice argument. -I'm probably more of a fan of cheating counterplans than I'd like to admit (no not Consult NATO) but I'm cool with multiplank counterplans, uniqueness counterplans, etc. -Please do not say "CP" it is called a counterplan


 * Disads**

-Big fan. -Turns case arguments are persuasive in front of me. -You should still be reading a PC key card in the 1NC. I am unsure of why people seem to think otherwise. -You should be able to articulate the disad as an opportunity cost to the aff.
 * Kritiks**

Neg: -I will have an easier time understanding and evaluating topic specific kritiks than I will high-theory criticisms.

-Your kritik needs to be a discussion of the aff. I think that often times teams don’t pull specific links or contextualize their argument to the aff which inevitably makes the debate more difficult to decide.

-I would much rather sit in the back of a debate in which you are communicating your arguments to me as opposed to reading your Nietzsche blocks you wrote this summer.

-There is too little discussion of the alternative in these debates and I think you should explain how it resolves at least a portion of the impacts you have isolated in the 1NC/Block/somewhere in the debate.

-Cheating K tricks are fine and I understand why strategic, but don't just throw out buzzwords at me. Explain why "serial policy failure" is a thing or at least the implications of such argument.

-Root cause cards are not link cards in my opinion, though I often deploy them as such.

Aff:

-Don’t forget you have an aff. Too often people get too caught up in the kritik that they forget that the aff is a thing. Use it to your advantage. -You should not go for everything in the 2ar. Sit on well developed positions that will win you the debate.

-Don't just extend the perm text. Explain why your methods/positions are not mutually exclusive or how the permutation resolves anything. -Have a defense of the things you've read in the 1AC.


 * Theory**:

-I generally think that a logical limited number of conditional advocacies is okay. This does not preclude you from winning on conditionality in front of me however.

-I’m not willing to vote on a cheap shot, dropped theory argument that you don’t articulate and think you should win just because they didn’t answer.

-Like topicality, debate this like a disad with internal links to your impacts.

Questions, comments, concerns? Email me or feel free to talk to me before the debate.

ogata.christian@gmail.com