Zhao,+Oliver

I debated LD for 4 years at Monta Vista High School, and now I’m a freshman at the University of Chicago. If you have questions email me at oliveryzhao@gmail.com or message me on Facebook. I haven’t flowed spreading for about half a year so you probably don’t want to go at full speed right out of the gate. I’ll vote on pretty much anything so long as it’s warranted and explained well.

Before your speeches either email or flash your speech doc to me and your opponent. I get that sometimes there are technical difficulties, but try not to steal prep.

Most of what’s below are just my own opinions on different types of arguments so if you’re pressed for time, I’ll give a tl;dr on the most important stuff
 * Plan, cp, perm texts and T/theory interps should be read SLOWLY and written down
 * Affs should defend the topic
 * Please weigh

I’m interested albeit not super well-read on philosophy, but if you know your stuff and can explain it to me I’ll vote on this. If you have skep triggers or other unclear implications in your framework they should probably be labeled as such.
 * Framework**

For plans: I find the weirdly specific plans in the topic lit way more interesting than whole res, but I’ll also listen to T.
 * LARP**

For counterplans: Condo is cool so long as the advocacies aren’t contradictory. I read some PICs when I was in high school so I’d be willing to vote for those too.

Remember to read your plan texts/cp texts/perm texts SLOWLY. You’ll find me very happy if you flash or email perm texts to both me and your opponent.

I read mostly Ks in high school, but don’t assume that means that I know what your authors are saying. Overly explain your jargon if you have to.
 * K**

You could run the jankiest Zizek K in all of debate history, and I’d be down with voting on it if you adequately explain it in a way that makes sense.

Just be able to explain exactly what the world of the alternative looks like. If all you do is reject the aff, tell me what happens after we do so. If you defend a mindset shift, tell me what the world looks like if everyone adopts this mindset.

Aff Ks, performance, etc. are all fine. I prefer that your affs be topical in some way or another. It’s perfectly ok (even encouraged) to have an unconventional reading of the topic provided you’re ready to debate T, but probably less ok to completely discard the topic in favor of your own position.

Strategic theory is fine so long as you warrant your standards and all. Same as with plan/cp texts, read your interpretations slowly. Theory debates tend to be fast and blippy so a well-organized speech doc with your analytics can do wonders for my flowing.
 * T/Theory**

I’ll default on competing interps, drop the debater, fairness over education, and no RVIs provided neither of the debaters make any claims toward either direction.

If you’re going to read tricks with lots of spikes hoping that your opponent will drop or mishandle one, please make them clear in the speech doc. No sneaky shit like font changes, ugly highlighting, or extempting spikes not in the doc. Also, should keep in mind that if the goal is to prevent your opponent from flowing the spike, I’ll probably miss it too…
 * Tricks**


 * Things I like**
 * Fringe “topical” positions
 * Counterplans
 * Weighing