John+Overing

I debated two years for Loyola High School, where I earned six bids to the TOC and attended NSDA Nationals my senior year.

Stock - 1 Utils/LARP - 1 Stock Ks - 1 T/theory - 1 Lots of theory - 2 Funky Ks - 1/2 Tricks - 3 Philosophy - 3
 * Quick Prefs :**

Do impact calculus, win the case.
 * Pre-Round Paradigm-Viewing: **

Here's how you win in front of me: 1. Collapse to one primary position and win it 2. Explain why its impact outweighs all else

Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal stuff

For completely conceded positions, you only need to extend the base description of the position and its syllogism, and then jump into impact calculus. You don't need to name cards in extensions (though if there's one specific card, bring it up in the last speech). If a card will become relevant, even if it was conceded, still give an explanation of the warrant.
 * Extensions: **

- Topicality - Politics DAs - Stock Kritiks - Oddball Kritiks that show up out of left field (or are atypical or high theory) - Legit Theory - a solid Phil NC syllogism - well-explained atypical Phil NCs - Solid layering - Solid collapsing - Skep in a sketch v sketch round - Disclosure - lots of other things
 * Things I like (in no particular order): **

In an act of self-defense, I will boost speaks this weekend by 0.1 if you make cow puns in your speech and by 0.2 if you roast Emmiee Malyugina in good taste
 * Speaks **

Subjective, as always. Debate well. Open-source disclosure will make me more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this Props if you work puns into your speeches?

See Bob Overing See Tim Alderete Admittedly, my judging record has proven I have a some-what lower threshold for arguments than either of these two.
 * I'm probably somewhere between these two: **


 * Notes: **

I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.

Flex prep is assumed. I flow cross-ex and prep. I don't flow off speech docs.

Water and restroom breaks during the round: counts as prep time unless your opponent is okay with it being off the clock. (I do this not because I care, but because I don't want to risk debaters interacting with coaches mid-round)

I like kritiks. I read kritiks throughout my senior year. They can be very strategic, and I have a strong baseline knowledge of most positions. If you read Ks, I'll be a good judge for you. - to be filled out further
 * Kritiks **

I read theory shells throughout my senior year. I think 1AR theory can be very strategic, though try not to use it as a crutch for a bad aff. My background is very theory-oriented; if you weigh between standards / abuse stories in your last speech, you'll be fine. - defaults are silly, just tell me if it's drop the debater/arg/etc, and so on - to be filled out further
 * Theory **

I attended Loyola High School. This is what we did best. This is what I know well. - to be filled out further
 * Policy/LARP/Util **

I'm currently a Phil major at UC Berkeley, and have a strong grasp and appreciation of most positions. I think phil is quite strategic. Here are some phil positions I'm familiar with and can evaluate: - Util and other forms of consequentialism; Rawls (very familiar) - Intent-based (Kantian & etc.) OR virtue ethics (Aristotelian & etc.) - Social Contract (Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, or others) - Nietzsche - Constitutivism can be cool - various forms of skepticism - Prankster ethics ;) - Those not named you should ask about, less knowledge on those
 * Phil / LD Framework **

I am willing to vote on disclosure theory. Should you read it? Sure, UNLESS your opponent is new to debate. I'm **very** opposed to disclosure theory against students new to the activity. It makes me sad when this happens :(
 * Disclosure **