Chiou,+Bryan


 * READ THIS FOR BERKELEY**

So I haven't thought about debate since I last judged, which was in October 2013.

General guidelines: -I probably won't understand the super complex position you are reading - explain it to me like i'm stupid if you expect me to vote for you. (this should also help with your speaks) -Don't be an asshole

Can't really think of anything besides that. I still know how debate works, so have fun!



Hi, my name is Bryan Chiou and I am currently a sophomore at UC Berkeley studying Statistics and Business Administration. I debated circuit LD for 4 years at La Costa Canyon HS in San Diego and graduated in 2012. I traveled mostly within California and Nevada. I cleared at every bid tournament I went to my junior/senior year, but never went to ToC. As for my debating style, I mostly ran stock positions that were top heavy (framework dense) but that does not alter how I evaluate rounds.
 * Background **

Any type of argument is fine, as long as it has a structure. Policy arguments that make sense on the topic are interesting. So, K’s, D/As, whatever, as long as you explain it clearly, especially if it’s strange. I enjoy explanations after reading something dense, like if you were talking to a 10 year old. Be clear. Here’s how I’ll evaluate: First I’ll see who wins the framework with some sort of standard. Then, I’ll see who’s winning better/more/any offense to that standard (that’s your job to weigh).
 * General**

Speed is fine. Caveats: -Slow down for tags, authors, theory interps (read twice, even), and anything extremely important you want to drive into my head. -Don’t try to go faster than you can. You will look like a fool, I will call clear, your opponent will be confused, I will sympathize, and you will lose speaks probably. -Don’t go too fast against someone who you know can’t handle them. If you can’t beat them in a slow, nuanced debate, you probably don’t deserve to clear.
 * Speed**

I believe theory should actually be used to check abuse, not solely for strategic purposes. I’ll default to reasonability. If you establish competing interps, that’s chill too. With that said, I am also willing to listen to (and will probably be entertained by) a decent meta-theory debate. If your opponent is a douchey theory debater, go for it. In my experience, people suck at answering meta-theory. I am pretty open to T, more preferably if you read it as a reason to reject the argument (in which case a strategic approach would be fine). I will not refuse to vote for any particular shell/argument, but your speaks might drop if you are being ridiculous.
 * Theory**

A meh round is 27.5 If you debated pretty well, but not great (if I know you can do better, for example) then you will be at a baseline 28. 28.5 if you deserve to clear, anything higher if I enjoyed watching you debate Things to help your speaks -being clear -knowing when to speed up and when to slow down (line by line vs big picture) -giving clear voters -being funny -being considerate (especially if debating a novice/someone with no circuit experience)
 * Speaks**

If there's anything else, feel free to ask me before the round starts.