Overing,+John

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

Stock anything - 1 Utils/LARP - 1 Stock Ks - 1 T/theory - 1 Lots of theory - 2 Funky Ks - 1/2 Bad Tricks - 4 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. The threshold for extensions in rebuttals to conceded positions is very small.
 * Extensions: **

- Topicality - Non-topical ACs - 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 - Humor - Prankster ethics ;) - lots of other things
 * Things I like (in no particular order): **


 * Speaks **

- Debate well, do something new or interesting, or give me an easy decision in a polite way. - __Open-source disclosure__ will make me much more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this. - Props if you work __puns__ into your speeches? - __Show me your flow__ after the round and I'll add 0.1 to 0.3 speaks. If requested, I will give feedback on your flow. - *Please* do not attack your opponent. There's a fine line between "You are racist" and "Your position is racist," and they have wildly different impacts.


 * My judging style is similar to these judges: **

As a baseline, see Bob Overing and Tim Alderete. Admittedly, my judging record has proven I have a some-what lower threshold for arguments than either of these two.

For my opinions on in-round attitude and debate environment, see Ben Koh and Chris Kymn. Poor behavior will affect your speaks, though (barring extreme cases) I'll keep such issues out of my decision.


 * 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 or others 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. Make a mess (Read: don't collapse), and I'll be sad :( - 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 me about, I have less knowledge in those content areas
 * 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 **

Procedurals are the rules that govern debate's structure and are integral to (or constitutive of) the activity. I regard the following as procedurals: equal speech times, equal prep time, who gets to speak when, only one debater per side, no mid-round coaching or help, evidence has not been falsified or made up, probably some more.
 * Procedurals - Speech Times, Evidence Ethics, Resolution? **

Two sub-points. A) "Procedural" doesn't mean it's set in stone. If you argue that I should reject certain procedurals, I'm receptive and will adjudicate it. B) There are debates about whether or not theory, topicality, debating the resolution, etc. are procedurals. I don't default -- I treat this issue no different than drop the debater vs arg, ROB vs theory, etc.

Camp Suggestions?
Premier Debate!

Premierdebate.com/camps