Olson,+Ryan

@cps people: If you give me a big picture overview in the 2n/2a breaking down the round and how i should write my ballot I will be very happy and will give you higher speaks

HS: Monte Vista High School (Danville, CA) College: UC Berkeley

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for 4 years, with dozens of rounds at circuit tournaments. I also competed in National Extemp, winning the California state tournament my senior year and finishing 12th in the nation. I’m open to literally any argument as long as you support it properly with well-linked logic and evidence, and explain it properly. Feel free to run K's, theory, etc. I'm ok, but not great with speed, but if you give me a copy of your case or speech before you give it, you can go as fast as you'd like. I judge from the top down; layer by layer. If you can distinguish yourself as the winner at the top layer, you win.
 * __Short Version:__**


 * __Long Version:__**

//Background// I’m currently a second year student at UC Berkeley studying Economics and Public Policy. Over my four years at Monte Vista, I competed primarily in National Extemp and Lincoln Douglas, finishing 24th and 12th during my junior and senior years (respectively) at nationals in extemp. I also won the California state tournament my senior year in National Extemp. I've judged a few dozen rounds of LD at CPS, Stanford, and Berkeley.

//Speaking Preferences// I’m fine with speed as long as it isn’t excessive; if you give me your cases or speech, go as fast as you want.

//Argument Preferences//
 * Theory** - I'm fine with theory debate; I tend to prefer that you use it for actual abuse, but I'm happy to vote on it regardless of the reason you have for adding it as an element of the debate. I won't buy arguments that discount your opponent's use of theory solely because it's strategic or frivolous . If that's the case, you shouldn't have trouble identifying its meaninglessness. Slow down as you read your interps. Aside from the arguments being made in round, I default competing interps, drop the debater, RVIs, theory > K, fairness before education, but make arguments anyways for clarity.
 * T -** T debate is very interesting, I enjoy hearing it, just make sure you explain your logic from top to bottom


 * Kritiks** - I love critical arguments, they're awesome, but be sure to slow down for tags and explain main arguments. Also, when extending, be sure to explain why the card you're referencing is impactful.


 * Util** - I'm super familiar with util arguments, just make sure that you explain methodology well and can weight impacts properly against other evidence. I'm definitely best on util arguments.


 * Framework -** I'm a big fan of framework debate, but you'll have to do a good job explaining how your philosophy interacts with other layers of the debate round. Feel free to run unconventional framework.

//Speaker Points// I'll default to 28.5 and go higher or lower based on the quality of your round. If you explain logic well and refute and extend in an organized fashion, you'll do well. Other things that can cause your speaks to go up: 1. Treating your opponent with respect and giving them substantive explanations of your arguments if they're having trouble understanding. 2. Giving solid big-picture overviews 3. Making tag lines and delineations in your case and speech clear

I look forward to a well-argued, logically substantive debate!

Any questions? Email ryan.olson@berkeley.edu