Bhat,+Saleil

I debated for four years at Los Altos High School and attended the 2011 TOC.

Speed is fine, but slow down on author names and tags. Please sign-post very clearly. I default to a truth-testing paradigm but am open to arguments otherwise. If both debaters agree prescriptive rules for action exist, I will only evaluate arguments which are presented in the context of some weighing mechanism, usually a value criterion (non-traditional means are fine as well). I consider the framework debate to be comparative.

I am not familiar with critical literature. If you run a K in front of me, be sure to clearly explain your position and more importantly, how it interacts with your opponent's. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand, even if it's dropped.

When evaluating theory/topicality, I default to reasonability (defined as “demonstrated abuse must be shown to trigger the voter”) but am //very// easily persuaded otherwise. Fairness is definitely important, but you can argue that it’s a reason to reject arguments and not debaters. I like RVIs, but you must justify them to win offense on a counter-interpretation. On a subjective note, I am particularly persuaded by arguments about in-round skew (either actual or potential).

I will award speaker points for clarity, strategy, and intelligence of argumentation. Mentioning a power metal or death metal band during your speech will result in a speaker point boost, if you do it cleverly.