Ikeda,+Julie

Julie Ikeda 4 Years of Policy in HS (2006-2010)

T: I am willing to vote neg on T and enjoy a T debate if done well. However there are some arguments that need to be covered:

1) Explain your violation. I should never be confused about what the violation is and it should be consistent throughout the round. 2) Your standards should be clear as well. I want to know why the affs violation of your interpretation is bad. 3) I will vote for real abuse over potential abuse. I think that T can be a gateway issue if the team presents and defends it as one. If there is real abuse going on in round and it is clearly articulated that is persuasive to me. 4) I will call for the plan text if T is a deciding factor in the rebuttals.

And if you are going for T go for T. I'd like to see the vast majority of the 2NR spent on T if you want it to win you the round. Anything less than 4 minutes means there is usually not enough depth for me to understand a clear violation and give the argument enough weight to vote on it. Trying to combine T and another flow also means less coverage on the impact debate, you get less theory arguments and it becomes too shallow to really evaluate it.

D/A's - I am more apt to believe impact defense than most judges. I think that a probable defense to large impact scenarios will outweigh a minute chance of said scenarios. That being said you can win your DA impacts in front of me, but it has to be more work than .00001% chance of nuclear war will outweigh any systemic impacts because it is nuclear war.

C/P - To win the C/P you need to not only win the net benefit but also win solvency of plan action. However I'll also vote on perms if I think that work has been done on the solvency story for the aff. I usually default to test of competition than advocacy. In depth comparison of world of the C/P versus world of plan and/or perm is also very persuasive.

K's -Please have a solid Framework and alt advocacy when reading a K. I want to know where I should vote, how i should evaluate your K, and what your alt does. Also, for the aff, don't only play defense in why your case can work within the neg FW but also present offensive reasons as to why it can solve the K. On a whole I have read some of the K literature but I need to be under to understand all of your K to vote on it. Your argument should be very clear, and I will fight to not do work for you here. I want you to tell me what your alt advocacy is, and if there is a specific action, and if not how your argument avoids the harms that you think aff plan will cause.

Case - Similar to DA I will vote for a clear no solvency argument. If the neg is doing more work on the case flow than the aff that is a real problem for the aff team. I think that the aff has to do some type of shadow extension within the 2AC to be able to really access any of case in the rebuttals, I won't just grant a magic appearance of strong case arguments later. Additionally, I think that Aff teams should utilize their 1AC more because if you spent all that time doing research you should be able to use your case in a variety of ways to answer arguments, its just more efficient.

Theory - Like most arguments I'm also willing to vote on theory. However,you should have a clear interpretation of theory and be able to explain exactly why/how the other team is affecting your ability to debate. Don't just read a ridiculously long block, present clear and definitive arguments that will really persuade me as a judge.

In general - I let the debaters run the round, you get to set the rules so tell me what they are and what I as a judge should be evaluating in the round. Also, I will call for evidence at the end of the round if necessary to decide. So don't give me crap about how amazing your card is and when i read it after the round I find out you're lying. Additionally, I will always value what arguments were presented in round as opposed to what your author says. If it's on my flow one way, but your card says another, I'm going to give more weight to my flow. That also said I will always try to not do work for either team. You should have a debate clear enough that doing work is not necessary. On a side note, debate is a competition but you don't have to be jerks. You can be amazing and win rounds but you don't need to attack your opponents in round for that to be clear.