Hi! My name's Mia — Add me to your email chain, please! miamtran@ucla.edu

I don't actively debate but did reside in policy, so I can most likely follow along with your lingo, but please complete your arguments as if I don't know anything about this topic at all. I don't have many biases, none that will ever interfere with my decision, any argument is fine as long as it's not hurtful in any way. I will try my absolute best to stay impartial to make the debate space fun and enjoyable for everyone.

I debated for 4 years in high school Policy with the Bay Area Urban Debate League. I was a 2A/1N, who generally debated soft-left, policy cases. I'm inclined to vote for arguments that are thoroughly aired out, well explained, and elaborated on — back up your arguments!

Tech >> Truth, so make sure to stay organized! I'll try my best to place arguments where they seem to fit, but you doing it for me is preferable — so please, SIGNPOST!

Speaks -

• There is a big difference between mumbling and clear articulation. If you spread and I cannot understand, I will ask you to clear, if it continues, I will stop flowing the arguments.

• Please do not use any harmful language! I will not hesitate to deck your speaks, or even stop and intervene. Debate should be fun, safe, and educational—any hurtful and discriminatory language will not be tolerated.

• I enjoy a passionate speech! Performance will not solely win you the round, but it will definitely get you better speaks.

T/Framework - Role of the ballot matters! Provide a counter role of the ballot or else I’m forced to view the round through the lens of the one that is given to me.

I like T/Framework, but please make a great effort into developing a clear basis if you are planning to go on these kinds of arguments in the rebuttals — impact it out!

Theory/Condo - Please be clear on your voting issues — if you are going to go for these arguments, you must explain why they’re abusive and how said abuse has occurred in round.

Run condo if you’d like, but I won’t start buying into “condo bad” until 5+ off-case positions are run.

Kritiks/K-Affs - I really enjoy K’s and think that they are a smart neg strategy. I commonly run K’s myself, so I understand the basis, but please clearly articulate the link, alt, and solvency — it is crucial for good K’s and will help me clearly define if it is worth the ballot.

For K-Aff’s Specifically: I sway more policy, but that will never deter me from erring on the side of a good K-Aff. I have heard many K-Affs before and believe that every good one NEEDS a clear advocacy statement (i.e. what are you doing? Why is this advocacy important? How does this function in benefitting the cause in the real world?)

If there is no roll of the ballot provided from either side, I will default to a role-play policy-making lens — In my opinion, debate is a game (unless convinced otherwise), if T is run, I’ll default to technical and procedural issues to determine the round.

CP/DA - I enjoy a good CP and will vote on it, but only with a clear net benefit and case-specific warrants. For DAs please do the work on risk and impact calc — without this, it’s difficult for me to gauge the importance of the ballot. Also, be clear on the internal link story for the same reasons.

For perms: Please be clear on how your perms function and how it’s mutually exclusive.

Lastly! Don't forget to have fun! That's what debate is all about!