Overbeek,+Daniel

Experience – Graduate of University of Michigan, Medical Student at Wayne State University. Assistant Director of Debate at Dexter High School 7th Year Coaching and Judging

The Quick Philosophy: I know that I have preconceptions about arguments/styles/etc, and I will let you know what they are if you ask/later in my philosophy. However, I will do my best to evaluate each round only on the merits of the round, and not my preconceptions.


 * For the Michigan State Finals Tournament - I will listen to arguments about "MIFA Rules Violations", however they are no different than any other theory argument. They must be impacted, similar to "Condo Bad" or "Consult Bad". And "This is a MIFA violation" does not have an impact on its own, you must link arguments to things like Fairness or Education.

The Long Philosophy: (To give credit where it is due, I've probably stolen a bunch of this partially off other philosophies)

1. I will do my best to enter a round as a blank state. Judges always say that they are "Tabula Rasa" without adding additional information. I feel like it is impossible for a judge to be truly Tab, however I will do my best to. Each round should be evaluated only on its own merits, and hopefully not based on the preconceptions that I have. I am still on the border of determining whether this extends to historically true statements or not, however as of right now, I evaluate each round based on the arguments made in the round. If both teams treat Kim Jong-Il as the president of Japan, then I'll evaluate the round as if Kim Jong-Il is the president of Japan. (Won't be happy about it though...)

2. I want the debaters to explain to me how to evaluate the round. What does me signing the ballot for the affirmative/negative actually mean? The ballot says "Which team did the better debating?" What does that actually mean? Does that mean the winning team promoted the better policy option? Does that mean the winning team made me laugh?

3. I've debated in both High School and College, and I've judged HS Debate for 6 years now. I've debated against and judged all forms of debate, from the most conservative, to the most outrageous. I will attempt to be open to all forms, but I am most experienced with rounds where I am a policymaker, deciding between the advantages of competing policies.

4. I feel like topicality and theory debates are rarely clear enough for judges to evaluate well, and are also not impacted well. I am open to theory objections, just please make your theory blocks clear and easy to flow. Also, please be responsive to your opponents arguments, and don't just read your theory blocks in response to theirs. I tend not to believe the "reject the argument, not the team", because it makes being abusive no-risk for the other team. However, I have a very low threshold for dropped theory arguments. 4 years ago, I was on a streak of about 5 tournaments in a row where I voted at least once on Perm Theory. I gave terrible speaks during that streak, but I still voted on it.

5. (Thanks to Roy Levkovitz for this) "The Kritik- Man do I vote neg on the K a lot. No wait, wait a second, I haven’t started wearing hemp shoes, not showering for days on end, or even reading Heidigger and Zizek for fun. I vote negative due to affirmative incompetence. If 2as were doctors I’d sue them for negligence the problem is so egregious. Lets play a little game here. Lets say I read a CP that’s text was something like oh imagine a world where capitalism didn’t exist. In the 2ac would you make an argument about why trying to do that was illegit? Would you even go so far as to say it would be impossible for this marvelous sounding counterplan to work?

News Flash 15 years later. The Kritik is an abusive CP with a non unique DA net benefit. The Key to winning or losing my ballot on the K is whoever does the most work on either selling or discrediting the alternative. If the negative wins the complete impact to their K (assuming none of it involves turning the case, and maybe even if it does) but does not win that they can effectively change the system they will lose. Making root cause of arguments on the neg is also good. Usually the more radical the K the less I’m down for it. I will not read the evidence to try to figure out your argument. Tag line extension like extend bleiker its conceded doesn’t do it for me. If you are aff win the alt doesn’t solve the case, the case is a da to the alt. "

I tend to favor K's more when the alternative does something substantive. If I can compare the alt to 'sitting in a hippie circle, smoking pot', it probably doesn't do enough.

6. I find it really difficult for teams to be affirmative recently, mostly because they are letting negatives get away with "cheating". Now, I know this comes from a coach who's kids dance and sing to Down by Jay Sean in front of a round, but I don't think they lost one round last year to framework. This is not just limited to the K too, affirmatives rarely ever call out negatives on abusive "counterplans". I tend to find alternate theory frameworks such as "solvency advocate" persuasive.

7. I tend to believe that if it's your speech, I'm going to ignore everything your partner does. I'm not going to intervene it on my own.

As a final word, and where I will add things in the near future when I remember them:

Dan likes: -Impact Analysis -Case turns treated as a real strategy -More analysis instead of 300 cards saying the same thing

Dan doesn't like: -Obnoxious debaters (there's a fine line between being confidant/forceful and being obnoxious) -Affirmatives that don't have a plan text/advocacy statement -Unclear theory debates -Factually inaccurate debate (note the Kim Jong-Il example earlier)

x. When I became a judge, I know that I defended the 2nr too much. I'd like to believe that I am a more balanced judge now, however I'm including this in the spirit of full disclosure.

And just because I found it interesting, here's a message I received through Wikispaces.... I understand that my judging philosophy makes me irresistible, but try to control yourselves please. (FYI, I tend to respond better in person....)

Hello My name is Vivian (single). I was impressed when i saw your profile today and i will like to establish a long lasting relationship with you. In addition,i will like you to reply me through this my private e-mail box( email removed ) Thanks waiting to hear from you soon. Vivian

 I am open to whatever arguments you want to run, as long as you explain them throughout the round, as well as defend them. I want you to tell me how to view the round and how to evaluate arguments. If you don’t tell me how to view the round, I’ll usually evaluate the round under a comparative policy standpoint. Specific things: Affs – I would say that I’m predisposed to believe that the affirmative has to defend the world in which plan is passed. Doesn’t mean I haven’t picked up micro-political action K affs before, but just be ready to defend them. Case/DA - Make sure you clash with the opposing arguments. A good case debates is something that is missing from debate these days. K – I am open to K’s, and I love to see a good K debate. Unfortunately I’m not as well versed in the K literature as I would like to be, so please explain it well, especially if it’s a more obscure K. I have a lot of debate judging experience, so I do understand the basic idea of most of the generic K’s, but remember to explain to me what you’re talking about if it’s something slightly more obscure. Theory/T/etc – make sure I can flow you, and don’t just be bland and read off you “condo bad” block and assume it’s going to win you the round. Otherwise, I want you to do the work for me. Impact analysis is good, obviously. I would like for the 2nr/2ar to be writing out my basis for decision. I also do my best to avoid intervening whenever possible.

Other random stuff: Speed of Delivery: it’s all good, just make sure I can flow you Prompting: it’s all good. Decision Disclosure After Round: i’ll disclose.