John Overing ParadigmLast changed 10/11 8:57P PDT
I debate for UC Berkeley. I debated two years for Loyola High School, where I earned six bids to the TOC and attended NSDA Nationals my senior year. I've judged over 250 rounds.
Stock anything - 1
Utils/LARP - 1
Stock Ks - 1
T/theory - 1
Lots of theory - 2
Funky Ks - 1/2
Philosophy - 3
Bad/Messy Tricks - 4
Win the case, win the debate. Do impact calculus.
Here's how you win in front of me:
1. Identify the issue that will win you the round
2. Collapse to that issue and win it
3. Explain why it outweighs or should be evaluated first
Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal stuff
Comments above give a brief overview of my judging style. Comments below show how that applies to specific elements of debate.
I like kritiks. I read kritiks throughout high school and into college. 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.
I read theory shells throughout high school. I think 1AR theory can be very strategic, though try not to use it as a crutch for a bad aff. My high school 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 :(
- I think defaults are silly, so just tell me if it's drop the debater/arg/etc, and so on
I've read, answered, and judged so many of these rounds that I've lost count. I'll vote for hard right strategies against the K, and I'm happy to watch policy rounds.
Phil / LD Framework
I've taken a lot of philosophy courses at UC Berkeley and have a decent grasp and appreciation of most positions. I think phil is quite strategic, though perhaps there aren't that many judges around these days to evaluate it. Here's a list of positions I'm decently familiar with:
- Consequentialism (Util etc.), Deontology & Intent-based (Kantian etc.), virtue ethics (Aristotelian etc.), Social Contract (Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke)
- Nietzsche, Rawls, constitutivism, skepticism and determinism
- Prankster Ethics ;)
Those not named you should ask me about, as I have less knowledge in those content areas, but as long as your syllogism is coherent, I think I'll be able to follow.
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 :(
Procedurals - Speech Times, Evidence Ethics, Resolution?
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, the resolution, probably some more.
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) If you violate certain procedurals, you should defend why.
For completely conceded positions, you only need to extend the base description of the position and its syllogism, and then jump into impact calculus and its implications. You don't need to name cards in extensions (though if you want me to look at a piece of evidence, 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.
- 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 meanings.
My judging style is similar to these judges:
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.
I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.
Flex prep is assumed. I flow cross-ex and prep. I rarely if ever flow off of 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.)
Things I like (in no particular order):
- 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
- Prankster Ethics ;)
- lots of other things