Hey, my name is Gaurav Ohol (G-O-R-UH-V). I have debated Lincoln-Douglas and Public-Form, at Bentonville High School. I am currently studying at the University of Arkansas, double majoring in Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science. If you care about my qualifications; I was one of the 2017 national qualifiers in Lincoln Douglas debate from Arkansas, I placed 2nd at Arkansas Tournament of Champions (ATOC), etc.

****UPDATED FOR TIGERS EYE 2017****

Formalities in the round:

These are just some general formalities within the round that I expect and some preferences.

§ I am lenient when it comes to spreading in different styles of debate. Specifically, in terms of LD and PF, I do not mind if you spread, just note that if you do, I need a copy of your case on a flash drive, or email chain. (flashing or emailing will not be taken out of prep)

*** NOTE THAT IF I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU, I WILL SAY CLEAR ONCE AND AFTER THAT IF IT CONTINUES I WILL NOT FLOW YOUR SPEECH***

§ Cross Examination is binding. I will not flow it, however, if it becomes offense in the round I need specifics on why its paramount and how I should evaluate it.

§ Voters are great. Give me reasons to vote for in each AR or NR, clear and concise voting issues would be great so that way evaluating the round doesn’t have to be as confusing. When it comes down to it, voters are a massive part of the debate and not giving voters will cost you speaker points (if you care).

§ Debate Jargon is fine with me, I understand it all --- doesn’t increase or decrease speaker points in anyway.

§ In terms of Argumentation and types of argumentation: I consider myself to be a tab judge, meaning I will evaluate any argument that is brought forth. Personally, I love philosophical/critical argumentation. If it comes to abusive arguments, I will evaluate the claim and determine if there is any warrant to the argument. If you try and champion an argument in the round (racism, feminism, etc.) be curious to your opponent, and make sure you have evidence to back up everything you say. Don’t make points in the AR and NR that you don’t use evidence for, if you bring something up that is contemporary, that’s cool, if you bring up a claim and have no warrant, then there will be reasons to drop you.

§ ***PLEASE ROAD MAP BEFORE YOU BEGIN REBUTTALS*** If I cannot follow your speeches in an orderly fashion, it will become harder and harder to vote for you and WILL cost you speaker points. I consider road mapping to be an essential part in any form of debate and not doing so it only to your disadvantage. In the same category, make sure you give indicators when you move from argument to argument so the speeches become smoother.

§ In terms of interactions within the round, DO NOT BE RUDE, rudeness will not be tolerated in round, I understand if you are passionate about an argument and such, however, there is a fine line between passion and rudeness. I will drop your speaks for this.

Policy

I have never debated policy; however, I am very familiar with it and the mechanics.

In this form of debate, I will take it how it comes, I have no preferences in context, critical argumentation is awesome, if you can’t understand/relay the information in your own words and you read it, there will probably be a negative correlation.

As long as you know what you are doing and I can understand what you are doing, it should make for a solid round.

LD

So here is where all my preferences will be. I was the 2017 national qualifier in LD, so I have preferences and experience in this debate. I am fine with both traditional and progressive forms of LD, prefer progressive argumentation. (if you are novice, I understand that you might not follow all these preferences so that fine, because its novice I won’t deduct speaker points.) If you are mismatched (meaning progressive v. traditional) the progressive debater must be able to “dumb down” their arguments for the other debater. If there is an attempt to overwhelm your opponent or screw them over with your argumentation style, speed, etc. you speaks will drop dramatically.

Framework is critical in the round, I will vote on that just the same as every other argument, its LD so yeah, have a framework.

PF

I have done PF debate numerous times. I have seen both speaking fast and flow paced debates. I am fine with whichever, I will evaluate whatever you tell me do to and vote on what you say. Presentation doesn’t factor much into the voters, however, dilvery and passion can only help your case.

If you have any further questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Good luck and have fun!

tl;dr put me on the email chain pls. rylieslone@gmail.com

Introduction:

I debated for three years at Bentonville High School in Arkansas in every style of debate. Graduated in 2017 -- I am very old. I did most of my national-level competition in LD, PF, and Congress, but there is a special place in my heart for CX. Currently a 2L at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Generally, I am open to most styles + arguments. I consider myself to be a strict flow judge so keep track of the line-by-line. Signpost, signpost, signpost (I'll let you do it before you start time but do not abuse this). Tell me what you want me to do! BE ORGANIZED.

Disclaimer: I will listen to most anything. This is your debate. Talk about what you believe in. Be respectful. BUT DO NOT use homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or xenophobic speech. I do not tolerate disrespect. Automatic loss and a swift report to tab if you cross that boundary. My preferences to specifics are listed below:

Speed

Be as fast as you want, but the second I stop flowing know you are unclear. If your spreading is ridiculously unclear, I'm gonna need a copy of the speech. I LOVE speed but am also totally cool without it. Generally speaking, be respectful of the usage of speed and be as clear as you can be.

Kritiks

I'd like to say that I know most of the commonly used Ks but DO NOT assume I know it without explaining it. It's been a little while. Be clear about your link and give me a really solid impact. Make sure the K alt interacts with the affirmative's solvency. (Shouldn't have to say this, but make sure the K isn't abhorrent - see disclaimer)

Topicality

Topicality debate isn't necessary (and imho is kinda boring) but it is procedurally important if it's brought up. Don't just go back and forth reading and rereading definitions. Give me good standards and voters. Tell me why you win it.

Framework

Framing is important. Your framework (or lack thereof) is what I will use to decide the round. If you don't give me a framework, I'll do a generic cost/benefit analysis. If you're utilizing it, the framework should be continued well into the last speech. Don't waste your time on it, but don't undercover it.

Case

I loveeee solid case debate. Don’t assume I will flow your 1AC throughout the round if you aren’t extending it (b/c newsflash: I won't!). Case debate is fundamental in my decision-making for policy-oriented rounds. That being said, please cover offcase positions as well. Just don’t kick your case to the curb in the process.

Evidence

Make sure your evidence is legitimate. I will call for any card that I (or your opponent) deem questionable and value the integrity of said pieces of evidence. Be cautious of this.

Also - I do not flow cross-ex.

All in all, good luck!

I'm going to assume you read this, but if you have any additional questions before the round email me at rylieslone@gmail.com.