Email chain: eric.boxuan.gao@gmail.com

Stanford '25

Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.

I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.

K affs should be at least related to the topic.

You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.

CP/DA

Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.

Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.

A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.

T/Theory

Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.

I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.

Kritiks

K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)

When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.

Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".

PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.

I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.

I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.

hi, I'm Ryan!

currently a second-year at yale; 4 years of PF w Fairmont Prep; toc 4 times, elims twice

debate to win but do so jovially (when possible) and kindly (always)

I'll evaluate rounds w as much good faith as possible, but I am partial to some standards:

• handle everything that matters in the 2nd rebuttal (all offense, all weighing, any defense on the args you want to keep in play)
• defense is not sticky, so extend anything u need in the 1st summary
• weighing is important, I believe it's conceded if not responded to in the next speech

I generally prefer evaluating less offense (hopefully 1 piece, 2 max) with good warrants, analysis, and comparative weighing

in the realm of progress, I don't require any specific structures in responses to progressive arguments; if you read theory, collapse on theory (I evaluate RVI's)

feel free to ask any questions @ ryan.gumlia@yale.edu

Experience: I debated for four years at Sage Hill School in mainly LD, but I occasionally did PF and World Schools debate as well. I'm experienced with both circuit and lay debate.

Email: timg51237@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sage Hill, Kudos, Elite of Arcadia, Elite of Irvine, DebateDrills

Short Version: I ran almost all types of arguments throughout my career, so I'll be fine listening to anything. Make sure you weigh back to some sort of framework and compare your arguments. I take the route of least intervention and will try to be as impartial as possible. If you're running a confusing position, please explain it well. Spreading is cool and I will yell "clear." If you have any questions, my email is at the top.

My views on debate mirror my (former) coaches John Staunton and Paras Kumar.

Long Version:

General: Please crystalize and weigh at the end of the debate. Explain to me why your impacts should come first. Absent weighing or some sort of framing, I will have no idea which arguments come first and you will probably not be satisfied with my decision.

I will try to be as impartial as possible, but I will not vote on blatantly false arguments. The only non-negotiable impact in the round is that oppression is bad.

Dropped arguments are true unless they're blatantly false. Please extend your arguments

Signpost so I know where to flow your arguments. The more clear your arguments and the better your analysis, the more I'm willing to grant you leeway on implicit clash and extensions.

I highly prioritize evidence quality and believe that a smart analytic is much better than a bad card.

I think the offense/defense paradigm is really important and probably very true. I'm willing to grant an argument 0% risk of a link if there's sufficient defense. I presume aff in the absence of any offense but I can be convinced otherwise.

I will auto-drop you if you make the debate space oppressive or uncomfortable eg. impact turning oppression, using a slur, etc... as well as clipping cards or blatant evidence ethics violations. Please don't make me do this.

T / Theory: I default to drop the argument, no RVI's, and competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Please distinguish between substance and theory eg. don't make a blip about why the aff's definition is unfair and don't make solvency deficits in your T shells. I don't gut check shells, but I think reasonability and drop the argument are good arguments against frivolous theory. I'm not a fan of paragraph theory.

CP's: I'm fine with counterplans, but most counterplans are defense because they're fundamentally an opportunity cost to doing the aff. Counterplans should be paired with disads. I think one condo CP is probably fine and plan-inclusive counterplans are probably abusive, but I can be persuaded either way. Permutations are very persuasive to the counterplan and I default to perms being advocacies absent other argumentation.

K's: I'm at least somewhat familiar with most schools of K literature, but please explain your link, impact, alt, and ROB very clearly. I've gone for Foucault, Agamben, Wilderson, Wynter, Berardi, Cap, Psycho, Model Minority, and Moten and Harney. Framing is by far the most important part of the K, and I will probably vote for whoever wins the framing. Weighing between the K and the case is very persuasive to me. K affs are fine but please explain why you actually solve anything.

Phil / Framework: I default epistemic modesty. If you're reading a deontological framework, explain how to weigh arguments under your framework. Framework debate often devolves into blippy analytics, so weighing is critical for me to evaluate the framing.

Tricks: I'm not a fan of tricks as anything other than a time suck; therefore, my threshold for responding to tricks is very low.

Trigger Warning:

Please avoid in depth discussions relating to family separation, family relationships, and sexual assualt as these are a personal trigger for me.

Yes, i would like to be on the email chain – itsdebatable.2017@gmail.com

Policy

tl;dr–

1. tech > truth

2. Theory have not gone for it enough to have an opinion just impact out it well and will vote on it. Might not be the best judge for this type of argument.

3. lean aff on framework but will vote on either side as long as you impact it out well.

4. good for k v k debates. Don't know the current topic for 2021-2022 from a policy standpoint that well.

5. Frame ballot for me on how to vote. If not I will have to use judge intervention and you might not like the way that I evaluate the round.

6. Start on Time and don't spend excessive amount of time flashing.

prefs:

1 –K v. k

2. K v plan or k v fw

3. case v. da/cp

Long

tech > truth; dropped arguments are true.

I am a policy debater for Northwood High school for 3 years. Specifically, I am a k debater and who has read model minority, Orientalism, and cap.

I am the 2A during both my sophomore and freshman year. I mostly read policy arguments freshman and sophomore year but have shifted to be more k this year and went to rks.

I will not protect any speeches (block, 1ar, 2nr, 2ar) absent a warranted call for protection. warranted calls for protection will be religiously adhered to.

Any of the below subjective views are secondary to good technical debate.

I lean heavily on util bad in terms of fw. You need to impact out why your argument matters and the significance of it for me to vote for you.

Kritiks

Contextualize them to the aff

You don't need fully win the alt if you win fw (but you still should have one) because both generate uniqueness for the k.

I will not judge kick the alt if it is not explicitly labeled as conditional, but I will if it is.

Having a theory of power is necessary to win especially in a kvk debate but should be there regardless.

Death Bad – I will drop your speaks immensely if the Lagotti k is read because personally I feel that this is a pretty immoral argument to be read in a debate round.

Pomo k's- I personally have a hard time understanding these. If you want to read them make sure to explain everything very clearly with as little jargon as possible or else I probably won't vote for you. I understand most of the thesis level claims but when it comes to the link and alternative level thats where my knowledge gets a bit hazy.

Identity k's- These are very good if read strategically. If you read model minority or Orientalism I personally read these and have done some research into them so my standards will be a lot higher. However, that does not mean don't read them just make sure you know what you are talking about. These types of k's I prefer and would love to see good debate centered around this.

k affs vs fw

I lean heavily aff on this issue but will vote neg if I feel like you did the better job of debating the warrants

Neg- You need a interp and do a good impact comparison of standards to win or a tva with a good impact comparison of standards to win.

Aff- You need a interp and good impact comparison of standards to win or a interp and offensive reasons why fw is a bad model for debate.

I believe that FW is slightly racist but not enough to the point where I will automatically drop you for reading it.

Your aff should be tangentially related to the topic but metaphor links are fine as long as they are well defended.

Black Fw or other types- Less familiar with these but if they are read are fine and probably create a better model for debate when answering k-affs. However, with that being said I still would lean aff on this issue but will vote neg if I feel like you did a better job of debating the warrants.

k affs vs ks

I am not super familiar with the literature (outside of model minority and Orientalism); differentiation and explanation are important

k affs get the perm just make sure to warrant it out well.

floating pics are fine (unless the neg comes up and read 20 floating pics for almost all minutes or something like that)

2AR spin is fine unless there are theoretical reasons not to or too much of it feels way too new.

Your impacts in this debate need to be extended but have a low threshold in my decision but usually comes down to the methodology of implementation and which one creates the most beneficial change for society.

Counterplans

I don't know that much on this topic specific CP's. As long as you explain it well and warrant out what happens you should be fine.

Counterplans that have cards from their own aff are especially good and shows you have done your research.

I believe that CPs should not be negative plans but modifications to the status quo that prove opportunity cost – this implicates aff cp theory.

Judge kick for cps is fine just implicate out the warrants for me and verbally say it for me to weigh it this way.

I would prefer a good permutation debate over theoretical debates about cp legitimacy. but my preferences are but I will still vote on it if you justify it and warrant it out:

- bad: PICs (unless its a K-aff), Time frame CPs, 2NC CP's

- good: most other counterplans

- condo: Infinite unless its just used to read like 100 t shells or A-Z spec.

Disads

Explain the story of the DA in order to win the ballot. I don't really know that many DA on the topic so you need to explain how these work and they link.

Marginal risk within reason (ridiculous disads can be answered analytically – i don't expect you to have a card that says "2018 elections passed" if they read the 2018 midterms da)

ptx is great but ev quality ow – spin can overcome poor ev quality (more sympathy on bad ptx weekends)

well-researched, topic-specific das are awesome debates and speaker points will reflect that

Topicality

I never really went for this and tried to read t affs for my freshmen and softmore year so that i could avoid it. I am not your best judge for these kinds of debates.

Unfamiliar with a lot of the interps on this topic as I am a k debater if you go for it you will need to spend extra time explaining your interp.

Interpretation and articulation of the violation is the most important

Absent alternative judge instruction, I will not weigh reasonability as part of my ballot.

2ncs and 1ar should give caselists and visions of the topic – and (preferably) offensive reasons to prefer the caselist.

Kritiks

Contextualize them to the aff

You don't need fully win the alt if you win fw (but you still should have one) because both generate uniqueness for the k.

I will not judge kick the alt if it is not explicitly labeled as conditional, but I will if it is.

Having a theory of power is necessary to win especially in a kvk debate but should be there regardless.

Death Bad – I will drop your speaks immensely if the Lagotti k is read because personally I feel that this is a pretty immoral argument to be read in a debate round.

Pomo k's- I personally have a hard time understanding these. If you want to read them make sure to explain everything very clearly with as little jargon as possible or else I probably won't vote for you. I understand most of the thesis level claims but when it comes to the link and alternative level thats where my knowledge gets a bit hazy.

Identity k's- These are very good if read strategically. If you read model minority or Orientalism I personally read these and have done some research into them so my standards will be a lot higher. However, that does not mean don't read them just make sure you know what you are talking about. These types of k's I prefer and would love to see good debate centered around this.

CX

Tag Team cross ex is fine. One partner should not dominate the cross ex though and should mainly be done by the person that is supposed to be giving this speech.

I will flow this loosely. If you want this to matter in the debate you need to bring it up in the next speech and extend it till the 2AR/2NR.

Prep

Don't steal prep. When you say stop prep that means you are going to send it you are not writing anything, copying more cards, talking to your partner etc.

Flashing does not count as prep unless your taking an abnormal amount of time for it.

Ld

Everything above applies

I am a policy debater so I might not buy some of the fw stuff or theory things that are unique to LD. I am not familiar with the topic you need to explain everything to me and impact out why you win the round. Please frame my ballot for me and why I should vote on it.

conditionality is infinite. (exception is if someone just read 8 minutes of T violations or CP's or something like this)

the theory argument you want to go for is most likely a reason to reject the argument not the team

words that i don’t understand that are common in LD:

- genericity

- upward entailment

- textuality

- nebel

Don't read nebel t. I don't understand why its a thing in LD and believe it is probably a bad model for debate. That being said I won't automatically vote you down but have a high threshold to not vote for you and your speaker points will reflect this.

Parli

Everything above applies

I am a policy debater. I would like to see impact calculus that is well fleshed out. Speeches should be coherent and make some sort of sense. There should be line by line that is done on the flow. Please frame my ballot for me and why I should vote on it.

I will vote on extinction impact scenario and have a low threshold for no extinction its arbitrary since one person will live but if well warranted out I will vote on extinction won't happen (your cause won't occur, mad checks, etc.)

PF

Everything above applies

I am a policy debater. I would like to see impact calculus that is well fleshed out. Speeches should be coherent and make some sort of sense. There should be line by line that is done on the flow. Please frame my ballot for me and why I should vote on it.

I will vote on extinction impact scenario and have a low threshold for no extinction its arbitrary since one person will live but if well warranted out I will vote on extinction won't happen (your cause won't occur, mad checks, etc.)

I prefer strong logical links over hard evidence or rhetoric.

debated for a fat bit in hs

i will flow

be nice

extend links and impacts

speed threshold ~200 wpm if more then send a doc

frontline in second rebuttal

read content warnings

please weigh - that includes links and impacts

Don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or exclusive in any way please or we will not b having a good time and i will drop u

ask me for any specifics

also gabe rusk's paradigm is v good use that one

or kyle kishimoto's that one's also v good

History:

Fairmont Private School

3 Years OCDL (Modified Parlimentary)

Sage Hill High School

3rd year of Pulbic forum

3rd year of World School Debate

Other details:

Generally speaking, I will vote for any kind of argument and am comfortable with a variety of styles and speeds. However, this is my first year judging and may struggle if you are fast AND unclear, or if you fail to do adequate weighing in later speeches.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line by line, some humor if you're actually funny) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too.

TLDR: Tech > Truth

********* This is in my paradigm but ill add it again because I dont want you to lose on some goofy technicality.... you need to fully extend your arguments. You cant just frontline and move on. After frontlining you have to extend your argument. *********


| PLEASE LINE BY LINE | PRETTY PLEASE SIGNPOST | EXTEND FULL ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | I WILL VOTE ON ANY ARG THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIONARY |

come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done unless you have a paradigm question

Pretty standard, here are some general things to do:

1. if its in final focus its in summary

2. frontline offense in second rebuttal. I won't make you but it's advantageous because of the next thing.

3. 1st speaking team, if the 2nd speaking team doesnt frontline defense/turns, please listen to me on this... defense can go straight to final focus. If a turn is dropped by them, and its not in summary, you can still extend it into ff as defense (if it's truly a turn its prolly terminal defense). As such, assuming 2nd speaking doesnt FL, 1st summary should be almost purely offense. If they do FL, then you gotta have the defense in first summary.

4. Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants). Although itll prolly help, i wont force you to extend author names as long as you properly signpost and extend your arguments in totality.

5. There are two ways i can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isnt needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy and do actual comparative analysis, and please even justify why i should prefer your weighing over theirs. I'm also inclined to reward good internal link debate. With that (and the following is bolded for a reason) PLEASE DO NOT USE "WEIGHING" AS AN EXCUSE TO READ NEW LINK TURNS. Idk what happened to the circuit but this got increasingly prevalent last year, and is even more prevalent, from what i can tell, this year. Thanks.

6. Speed: Please send a speech doc if its either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it wont help you when i get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS.

7. DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of yall accidentally do this anyways cause people dont read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. If the 'DA' is a big turn that truly applies to their argument, dope. If your rebuttal is "iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn tHrEe Is..." then please abstain. I already said im cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in the first constructive.

8. Theory: admittedly im not an expert, but im definitely familiar with theory and ran it a few times in my debate career. if youre reading theory just keep that in mind. If reading theory, structure it properly. If responding to theory/youre reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isnt an excuse to undercover it though. Also if youre concerned i (again) default to RVI .... keep this in mind ig.

9. Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, Ive read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. I just say I prefer util cause im less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.

10. Speaks are subjective. if you read pure cards ill definitely give a bump

11. CX: its only really for speaker points. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

*Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with the decision*

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=75393

That's everything. Have fun &

I am a 3rd-year high school debater versed in both Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary Debate. Fast speaking is fine; if you're going to spread, make sure you are clear and articulate so that both your opponent and I will be able to understand what you're saying.

It's Novice - try to make coherent and rational arguments (K's and T's are a bit of a stretch but it's fine)

If I can't understand it, I won't weigh it in my final decision.

Speaks:

20 - Disrespectful and racist/sexist/xenophobic

25 - Clearly unprepared

30 - Future TOC Champion :)

You'll likely get above a 25, don't worry :D