Yao,+Brian

Updated for: Berkeley 2018

Monte Vista High School (Danville) '16

Short Version:

Did four years of LD (and a host of other events) in high school, make whatever arguments you want, as long as it's explained well (blippy arguments are the worst). As long as you're good with flashing prep / email chains and structure, go as fast as you want.

Long Version:


 * __Background__**

I'm currently a second-year student studying Applied Math and Statistics at U.C. Berkeley. Over my four years at Monte Vista, I competed in LD (primarily) and Foreign Extemp at the state level and Congress at the national level and dabbled in PuFo a little bit. I've judged a pretty good amount of LD on the circuit since graduating high school, so feel free to do (mostly, see below) whatever you want in round-- I will most likely buy any arguments you want to run (outside of the most outlandish ones) **__as long as they are run well.__**

__**Speaking Preferences**__

To be totally honest, I've never been the best at understanding spreading. That being said, feel free to go fast, but __**be strategic about it. Slow down for things that are actually important (emphasize things like taglines, weighing, etc.).**__ If you're utterly unintelligible I will yell "clear" as needed, though if you keep going back up you'll lose speaks. Feel free to ask me after each speech if your speed was okay or not.

For refutation speeches, I really like good structure when you make your responses, i.e. numbering your responses when you make multiple ones, giving a clear tagline for each response, clear (and concise) road map, etc.

Also, just to be clear on this before round, putting docs on a flash / creating your email **__DOES NOT COUNT__** as prep time for me.

__** Argument Preferences **__


 * I'm fine with strategic theory outside of the most frivolous shells. Yes, disclosure theory is fine, though I've voted down my fair share of those on the merit of some solid argumentation about large-school dominance on the circuit. On a similar note, use your better judgment on theory! (And RVIs are great if the shell is dumb)
 * Ks are cool too-- can't say I ran them as a debater myself, but I've judged enough rounds to be somewhat familiar with judging them and some common literature. Just make sure they have a clearly linked alternative, and PLEASE make sure the alt isn't some blippy one-liner that no one talks about for the rest of the round.
 * I really, really like good T debates-- a lot of my favorite debates as a competitor, judge, and observer have been decided on T.
 * Plans and counterplans are fine, but I've often found that they constrain debate in a way that isn't particularly strategically interesting. Of course, I don't judge debates based on how interested / entertained I am, but I do really appreciate cool strategies in round! (PICs are okay too, but I'm pretty receptive to theory against them)
 * Haven't judged more than a couple performances, but they're actually really cool, so go for it.
 * __**All in all, don't make any absolutely absurd or discriminatory arguments, and I'll probably listen to whatever you have to say, as long as it is explained well and articulated reasonably clearly.**__