Salian,+Diya

General-- I debated for Northland Christian School, in Houston, Texas and graduated in 2015. Towards the end of my Senior year, I almost exclusively read Fem/Ableism kritiks. I'm fine with speed, as long as you are clear, and will say clear 3 times before I begin to dock speaks. Just know that I haven't judged since FBK last year, so if you decide to spread, please be sure to be clear! Clash is necessary- meaning you must make arguments that interact with both flows, not just defensive arguments about why your args are better. If you do not weigh arguments, you'll leave the ball in my court, and I'll have no choice but to intervene-- you may or may not like how this turns out, so you probably shouldn't risk it. Please use the word extend, and then explain what/why you are extending... It is so incredibly helpful to me when listening to the round, as it signifies that you are making an attempt at extending offense, which I may not have picked up on for whatever reason.  

 Speaks-- I award speaks based on in round strategy, as well as literal clarity. Please be respectful to your opponent... If you see that they are clearly not as advanced as you, there is not need to show off or intentionally talk down to them. Slow down for taglines/author names etc!! Specific Arguments-- Kritiks: Like I said above, my debating style evolved into both fem/ableism k's. I really really really enjoy these debates. I like k debates, so long as they are not contingent upon my understanding of obscure critical philosophy. You are probably walking on thin ice if you're considering reading DnG or Baudrillard in front of me! I think Role of the Ballot/Judge debates are important, but they are often understated in most of the rounds I've seen, which saddens me. T/Theory: Not a fan. This is not to say that I won't tolerate or listen to either, but I really don't like debaters that are obviously reading theory to read theory, or so that they don't have to answer or engage. If there is a seriously non-topical aff, or your opponent does something ridiculous in round, then by all means, go for it. As far as theory goes, I default to competing interpretations, and drop the argument, not drop the debater. Util/Policy Arguments: Totally cool with Plan/CP/DAs etc! Just be sure to roadmap/signpost where you are going so that I'm not lost between sheets of paper/offs. ***OFFENSIVE OR MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE ARGUMENTS***: I strongly believe that patriarchy, ableism, racism, and homophobia are inherently bad. DO NOT make any arguments that include (but are not limited to): rape good, disabilities do not exist, humor as an alt. That is the fastest way to drop a ballot. Overall-- Please be mindful of your words and respectful of everyone in the room. Do not be the person that steals prep time, or creates a hostile debate space. Let's keep the debate community a place where everyone is able to grow, learon and feel accepted. If you have any questions about my paradigm pre-round or about my decision post-round, please feel free to email me or add me on Facebook! :-) ( diyasalian10@gmail.com )