Bhatia,+Neeraj

Neeraj Bhatia

I debated at Newman Smith High School for four years and I currently attend Texas A&M.

Speed: I can handle speed. I can't handle mumbling, slurring, or other obstructions to comprehension. If you are not clear, I will tell you or stop flowing. Do your best to be more clear and not just louder. You /can/ slow down if you must.

Topicality: Since it seems to be so prevalent, I'll to default to a competing interpretations framework on face. However, I'm unlikely to vote unless it happens to be superbly argued or there is a clear case of in-round abuse.

Disads/Counterplans: Strategic counterplans make for some of the best debates especially when they're case-specific. I'm not a big fan of counterplan theory. It's boring, generic, usually goes unresolved in high school debates, and often impossible to flow.

Kritiks: This is the argument I have the least experience with. While I've read my share of Nietzsche and Heidegger, I don't process their jargon as fast as hardcore K debaters expect me to. Even when I understand the argument perfectly, I can't evaluate it against a stock issues case effectively. Framework, the role of the ballot and how it interacts with the plan are the most important issues to be resolved in the round. Specifically, I would like to see some degree of impact comparison. If the K solves dehumanization in a country that is getting nuked in the affirmative world, I can compare the casualties and concluded, since dehumanization is worse than death, that the K is superior to the aff. Obviously, it's not always that easy, but do your best.

Case: My favorite type of argument. I find these debates to be the most depthful and educational. Well-articulated solvency arguments are often what makes your generic spending+politics strats into winners.

Don't be afraid to spice up the round. Make references to history/pop culture. Make puns! A memorable performance will reflect more favorably when I have to vote.