Bhardwaj,+Maya

School affiliation: I coach/judge for Lane Tech this year. Last year I I coached for the University of Chicago Laboratory School. I am currently a sophomore at Northwestern. I debated for four years at Groves High School. Years judging: this one, freshman year, summers, etc. Rounds judged on this topic: at Morgan Park, New Trier, and U of M.

Topicality: I will default to an offense-defense paradigm regarding competing interpretations but there needs to be significant "impact calculus" on each definition; while I may be forced to vote for a definition I find absurd, I will be highly persuaded by reasonability if the argument is made clearly and is weighed given implications for how debate is viewed versus a competing interps framework. You need to put in a good amount of analysis on both the link level (ie the violation) as well - T is generally a yes-no issue and if the other team can prove that they meet your definition well enough, I will not vote on T. I am not the biggest fan of T but if the debate is deep without random buzzwords that you think should mean something to me when you aren't putting enough work in, I will like it.

The K: I like it well enough; however, catchphrases and jargon are NOT enough. You need to spend significant time explaining the ramifications of your K argument rather than tossing out commonly used K phrases. I will understand them, but that does not mean that you do, enough for me to vote for you. Analysis of the alternative is very important, both on the neg and aff (honestly, alt doesn't solve case args are usually true - so you need to prove why it does, or why it doesn't have to). Impact analysis needs to be done on the K as well, with specific comparative arguments, rather than just "they create cycles of violence" bullshit. Framework is important. Aff, you need to read it - neg, you need to respond well. My default on framework is to reject the alt; tell me why I should do more. Don't make K debates overly messy - I like line-by-line.

Performance: I don't like it. I will listen to it if you make me, but I am not the judge for you if that is all you go for.

Theory: I don't love it - most high school theory debates tend to have little weighing of the "impact" claims and rather are just jargon. I will default to only rejecting the argument, if that - you have to provide me a really good reason to reject the team. While I have a high threshold on theory, CPs with multiple abusive planks / that fiat out of multiple levels of the aff / etc are probably abusive. Consult is probably not competitive but I can be persuaded that it is. Conditionality is probably good. Intrinsicness is an argument that I am more than willing to hear. Don't sacrifice substance for theory.

I was primarily a policy debater in high school, but that doesn't mean that I don't like to hear the K - I do. Basically, I think there needs to be comparative impact analysis on all levels, regardless of whether you're running a K or a DA/CP/whatever. Indicts of the other side are good. Timeframe differentials are good on DAs. Smart arguments are good, even if they're defensive. If you make good defensive indicts against a DA, I will be persuaded - offense is awesome but it's not the only thing. Be smart / clear / organized. Have fun. This is a shortened version of my judge philosophy, so if you have other questions feel free to ask me before the round.