Abigail Gold - Solano CC

n/a

---

Francesca Franco - Solano CC

n/a

---

Mahari Wright - Solano CC

n/a

---

Malika Amin Mirador - Solano CC

Firstly, I put respect for other competitors and teammates above all else; I really dont like disrespect in round, whether that comes from ad hominem attacks, rude behavior, or making other people in the room feel uncomfortable. In order to make sure the debate space is as accessible and inclusive as possible, Ill drop any team/debater that does not respect the other people present.

On the actual debate stuff, Im a parli debater, so most stuff is okay with me. Ill vote on theory and procedurals (I really like good T debate), as long as everything is clear, and there is proven abuse. That being said, I also really like RVIs, and will vote on them. This is the same thing with spec and trichot, as well as aff positions like condo bad, PICs bad, etc. As long as there is a clearly articulated reason to vote on it, Ill weigh it. With K, just make sure to be extra clear. If theres no signposting, Ill probably miss most of it.

When it comes to case debate, again, please signpost or I will get lost. Im tabula rasa, and willing to hear pretty much whatever as long as 1) its not disrespectful, and 2) has a rationale behind it. I like weird arguments, econ arguments, environmental arguments, etc. I just really like case debate thats super interesting and has a lot of clash.

On speed: I really dont mind. Usually, I can keep up pretty okay, as long as you start off a bit slower than top speed so I can get used to your speaking. Overall, I see speed as a tool to get a bunch of quality arguments in BUT, if opponents call clear/speed, just make sure to slow down or clear up; sorta goes back to that whole accessibility thing again.

ALSO, I view parli and IPDA as two different kinds of debate. Im okay with most parli things being in IPDA, but I do think that running theory and procedurals, or trying to spread your opponent out of the round in IPDA is abusive. Also, because IPDA has no mechanism for actually making sure this is fair (i.e. no points of order), I dont flow new arguments in the last rebuttal speech unless it was the first opportunity to respond to it.

TLDR: Im cool with pretty much everything as long as everyone is kind to each other :))

---

Megan Savage - Solano CC

n/a

---

Monica Guerrero - Solano CC

n/a

---

Tyler Sasabuchi - Solano CC

Hello! Tl;Dr at bottom for those panic checking paradigms during prep.

Longer version: I've done debate, parli + IPDA, you wont lose me with jargon or theory stuff, most likely I can keep up with your speed but make sure its still legible and actual words. If your opponents ask you to slow or clear, do. Debate needs to be accessible. I vote on T+K. On T, I prefer proven abuse, but will buy potential abuse if you can provide a very clear and solid line of thinking to the abuse. For K make sure your K is logically consistent, and use examples that actually support it. Not the biggest fan of pie-in-the-sky theory Ks (vote neg to embrace fate, out there multi-verse theory) but in rare cases... maybe. I prefer on/off case direct clash, and love weird or off-the-wall stories to get to impacts, as long as the story makes sense and has
good impacts. If you've got weird stuff you want to try, please feel free. I will be mostly tabula rasa, barring very obvious things (dont tell me the sky is purple and expect me to fully buy that without significant evidence). Love historical examples to support points. Please enjoy yourselves and have a good time, a bit of humor goes a long way in a round, but isnt necessary. 

Tl;Dr seasoned debater, ok with jargon/speed, don't mind theory. T doesnt need proven abuse, but potential needs strong through-line. K is fine, but make sure It has logical consistency, and lets not get too crazy with theory. Big fan of clash, prefer it to theory, you can run whatever wild stuff you feel like as long is makes sense. Be nice and polite to each other, preferably lets have some fun so we dont go insane.

---