Peddibhotla,+Bharath

About me: Debated for 4 years at Broad Run High School and was the captain of the team senior year. I attended multiple national tournaments and did fairly well. I am currently a student at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Relax and be funny. Debate is about serious topics but it is fun. Have fun when you’re debating and it will show in your speaker points.

Tips to getting my ballot- I think debate is controlled by the participants and regulated by the judge, that being said, it’s up to you what you want to run in front of me. People have said I am more of a policy debater, but that does not mean that I am not familiar with the Kritik. I have read arguments anywhere in between Nietzsche and Spending DA, so I am quite familiar with the __structure__ of each type of strategy. I am more interested on how you deploy your certain position which you take into the debate. Show that you know your K, DA, CP, etc.

Don’t assume I know all your authors/all the jargon in your disad or kritik, you must __explain__ them to me. I hate picking up a team where I don’t know what the affirmative does or what the disadvantage leads to.

Strategy > Truth. I like to see good strategies and well thought out before the round.

I will only look at evidence as a last resort and I might not even look at it to decide the round. It might just be an interesting card that I will call for. Do all your analysis in round and don’t leave it to me.

Be clear. I won’t flow what I don’t understand. I will tell you once to be more clear, but if you see me stop flowing it’s because I can’t understand you.

I am very flow-centric. I like to see what arguments have been made at the end of the debate and do analysis based on the flow. I am pretty quick with flowing – but if you want to emphasize something you need to slow down so I can catch all the parts of your argument.

I like impact calculus. Please do it.

Topicality- voting issue which comes before everything. Telling me what “reasonable” means in the context of specific T arguments will help me resolve any complication over whether I should be evaluating to competing interpretations or reasonability.

Theory- Win that your interpretation is better and enough for me to reject the arg/team. I tend to think it’s more of a reason to reject the argument than the team (except for condo) but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- Although I have been very right-leaning traditionally, I will vote on K’s. I like it when kritiks are used strategically. I would prefer that you have case/topic specific links, but I still think that you could spin your generic stuff in a way that sounds “specific” to the aff. Going deep into the framework/alt debate will probably help you a lot going for the K in front of me. Impact calculus is also important in giant impact-turn debate for both sides. Aff should make sure to answer K tricks (floating PICs, framework, root cause etc) and capitalize on the alt level---in my opinion, best aff args vs Ks are some combination of case outweighs+ perm or alt takeouts.

Disads- Go for the disad+case strat in front of me. I think more teams should utilize this aspect of debate more often because it is very effective. Must explain the impact scenario and clearly articulate your internal link chains/explain your case defense when doing impact calc.

Counterplans- Specific CPs are appreciated. Have an overview explaining what exactly your CP does so I can understand the intricacies of it. I don’t like the concept of “judge-kick”. I probably won’t default to it, assuming the other team puts little defense on it.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me before round.