Bhatnagar,+Jay

Update glenbrooks 2011: this is my 1st tournament this year so I'm flowing a little worse. I will say clear once but it's best that you watch me to make sure I know where you're at.

I debated at College Prep from 2002 to 2006, and coached at College Prep until 2010. I now coach for Harker.

I've judged about 300 flights of LD at TOC qualifying tournaments in the last 2 years. I probably average a 27 on speaks--so don't feel bad if you get a 27 from me. That's roughly the same as a 28 from most other (more generous) judges. I've given fewer than 3 30's a year, I'd say.

I'm ok with speed, but prefer that you slow down when going through short framework and/or theory arguments. I won't yell clear, but I tend to look up and look frustrated if I'm not getting you. I won't call your theory shell or case. Cards are different--I will call them, and accordingly, you can go faster on those.

I evaluate theory in terms of competing interpretations. It's important to answer theory with a counterinterpretation and to try to generate offense to the counterinterpretation. I don't view winning the counterinterp as an RVI absent an argument saying it is.

I'm probably biased against interpretations that view the resolution as a statement to be proven "true" by the aff. This doesn't mean I won't listen to or vote for these arguments. It just means I think that interp is hard to defend in a theory debate

I will start CX/Prep while your opponent is "Putting the sheets in order" for you if they handed it to you in order. If the debater is paperless, then I will not start prep/cx while they flash the file to you.

Try to weigh arguments and explain how they interact with each other.

Don't be rude in CX.

Old paradigm written in like 2007: It's there just FYI. Graduated 2006 Qualified to TOC twice, judged around 100 TOC-QUALIFYING tournament rounds this year.

It is very important that you weigh arguments in relation to each other within a decision calculus.


 * Speed**: My threshold is probably going to be upper-to-middle of the pack for this year’s (2008) TOC. I won’t yell clear, but I am not good at concealing my emotions, and if you are too fast for me to flow, looking at my face will probably make that apparent.


 * Argument Development**: Underdeveloped (read: short and/or blippy) arguments will be met with skepticism. On the other hand, short arguments can be warranted, and if the warrant is reasonable, short arguments are not problematic. If a 10 second NC arg becomes a 1 minute voter in the NR, I may be skeptical, and the 10 seconds in the NC had better be on the money. Blippy framework arguments in the AC will not matter if I had no warrant flowed in the 1AC.


 * Theory:** I am articulate on standard theory jargon, and have judged many theory debates this year. I prefer that debaters read a counter-interpretation when answering theory. Both debaters should be explicitly comparing their interpretation to their opponent's, and weighing impacts against each other. I tend to not vote on theory unless I can see an in-round abuse story. Tell me how your strategy or ability to access the round was hindered. I do have a slight reasonability threshold- if you're not winning clear offense to theory standards I won't vote for you on it. Theory makes a lot more sense if the violation is articulated in terms of in-round abuse. Potential abuse can be a voter, but I will not vote on potential unless the debater articulates the reason and is winning the potential for abuse with reasonable clarity. I treat theory like any other part of the debate, and will flow arguments and weigh them in terms of theory standards. Be careful about committing to theory voters- If both debaters argue theory is a voter before all else, logically, I will be forced to vote on theory, and ignore the rest of the flow. Make conscious strategic choices about how you want theory to function in the round. I would love if people answered theory with "reject the argument not the debater" more often.


 * Role of the Topic:** I am not married to the idea that the aff burden is to prove the topic true in some epistemological sense. I am open to the affirmative arguing that the only role of the topic is to divide ground, and that the debate should be a comparative argument about the preferability of each sides ground.


 * Speaks:** I probably average a 27.5, and do not conflate good debating with good speaking very much. Unclear speed (i.e garbled or not enunciated) will harm speaks. Articulating the decision calculus clearly and persuasively will win more speaks.


 * Discursive/Critical Arguments:** Fine, but you will be expected to define the decision-mechanism (i.e. define what it means to win my ballot) and then meet that definition.