Bhat,Saleil

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

Speed is fine, but slow down on author names and tags. I am not very good at flowing, so please sign-post very clearly. I default to a truth-testing paradigm but am open to arguments otherwise. I will only evaluate arguments that are presented in the context of some weighing mechanism (usually a value/value criterion construct, but non-traditional means are fine as well). You can still run pre-standard/a priori arguments, but you need to establish a systematic way of evaluating such things. I consider the framework debate to be comparative.

I am not familiar with critical literature. If you run a K in front of me, I probably won’t understand it. If you choose to run one, you must justify a weighing mechanism or link into your opponent’s, even if you link to pre-fiat impacts. I will //not// (as callous as it sounds) assume things like “mass murder is bad” unless a deductively proven standard tells me to do so.

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 find arguments about in-round skew (either actual or potential) much more persuasive than arguments about community norms and the like. I’m also skeptical of “education outweighs fairness” claims given the nebulous definition of the word “educational” (though I will vote on them if you are clearly winning those arguments or if you give a precise definition of what is educational).

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