Saggi,+Satvir

Satvir Saggi Milpitas High School '14 UCLA '18

About me: I’m a Microbiology major at UCLA and debated LD at Milpitas High School for 3 years. During my senior year I cleared at most of the bid tournaments I attended.

I was, if not, the biggest theory hack in high school and therefore, I prefer theory/topicality debate. Additionally, I find most non-util/non-K positions dull.
 * Short Version**


 * Long Version:**

Speed: Go for it but slow down on taglines and analytics. I'll say clear if I have to.

- I'm a better judge for these type of debates. - Default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. - Default to drop the debater and no RVIs. - Fine with a laundry list of theory spikes, tricks, paragraph theory, disclosure theory, metatheory, K of Theory, AFC, etc. Basically you can read any type of shell you as long as it is written well. - I enjoy good topicality debate. - Go ahead and read multiple theory shells. (I'll still evaluate "Multiple Theory Shells Bad")
 * Theory/Topicality**

I'll presume whatever you say. I'll flip a coin if no presumption arguments were made clear.
 * Presumption**

In regards to substantive debate, these are my my preferences, from most to least preferred, for an ideal substantive round: - Plan/CP/DA rounds - Kritiks - Most non-util positions
 * FW/ Substance/ Ks**

- Unfamiliar but go for it. Please give me an explicit methodology as to how I should vote.
 * Micropolitics**

- I will call for evidence if I have to. - I am not afraid to presume if the flow becomes too messy - Don't spend all 6 minutes if it's clear that you're going to win the round. - Make clear extensions - Come to the round pre-flowed -Flash or pass papers regardless of if your school has a "policy".
 * Miscellaneous**