Hi, I'm Natasha! I'm a current Parli and LD debater from Concordia University Irvine. (#TalonsUp) I have 3 years of experience in debate. I'm comfortable with speed, open to all arguments, just don't be rude to your opponent. (Seriously. I hate blatant hostility and disrespect. Don't test it. I'll drop you on sight.) Organization is key. Tell me where to vote and how to evaluate each argument. I may or may not be persuaded with iced matcha/chai tea lattes.

Please email me/ask me before round if you have any specific questions: natashacalilung@gmail.com

The Basics:

- I'll vote on anything. I do not have a preference for specific args/strategies.

- I defer to competing counter-interps for theory. Reasonability is arbitrary.

- Please collapse.

- Read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. A written copy would be nice.

- I'm down for Aff/Neg K's. I'm familiar with the more traditional literature (Foucault, Marx, etc) however, I would prefer a basic thesis of the literature anyways. I'm not persuaded by "they said state! that's a link".

- My ballot will weigh heavily with what's said in the rebuttals. I will try my best to protect against new args, but call a p.o.o anyways.

- I'm not very facially expressive. Don't try to read my face to see if I'm vibing with your arguments.

- I'm a speaker fairy, so yay for you if you care about speaker awards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I like clear moderate paced engaged but professional debates. I will need k philosophies explained thoroughly. I am truth over tech. I am a parent judge who has been judging Policy, PF, LD and World schools at the state and national level for 2 years.