Bhatla,Amit

Debate background: -Four years of debate at Shawnee Mission Northwest -Current third year debater at the University of Kansas -Assistant Coach at Blue Valley Southwest

Last Updated: 9/27/15

Other top level stuff:

1. I will do my best to be an impartial critic, but that is only possible in a world where the debaters don’t leave me with any loose ends that I need to resolve by myself. 2. Tech over truth – I prefer clear technical debates. A dropped argument is a true argument. 3. An argument must contain a claim and a warrant. 4. I tend to evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm but I am willing to assign 100% risk of a case takeout or a 0% risk of disad. 5. I would be willing to listen to arguments about why lying during disclosure is a voting issue. 6. I will not vote on a microaggression. That is a question of speaker points and not which team did the better debating.

On specific arguments:

K Affs – I have a strong bias in favor of framework-type arguments that the affirmative should have an instrumental defense of the resolution. In a world where the negative does not make this argument, this becomes irrelevant. To deploy a critical affirmative in front of me that does not defend a plan, it would be best to show concrete reasons why your affirmative is topically germane, does not reduce ground, and/or explode limits.

Topicality – Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I tend to default to competing interpretations and have yet to be persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability. I find topical version of the aff arguments very compelling so negatives should make sure to deploy those arguments. I prefer that you have evidence for your interpretation in order to make sure it is predictable and grounded in the topic literature. Limits debates are important for both sides.

Counterplans – I tend to believe that counterplans ought to be textually and functionally competitive but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. I will not kick the counterplan for the negative unless explicitly instructed by the negative in the 2NR that the status quo is an option.

Theory – Usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I have an __overwhelming bias in favor of conditionality__ and it is an extreme uphill battle to get me to vote for the argument unless it is conceded or forces egregious aff contradictions.

Theory arguments I tend to lean aff on: -Consult -Delay -Word PICs -Object Fiat

Disads – My preferred strategy as a 2N is DA + CP, but I also very much enjoy DA + Case debates. Turns case arguments are very strategic and should definitely be deployed by the negative.

Case – I am a big fan of case debates because there is so much opportunity for clash which tends to boost speaker points. If you can minimize the risk of the aff your chances of winning will increase substantially. I am also a fan of impact turns and I enjoying listening to those debates.

Kritiks – You should err on the side of me not being familiar with your K lit so you should have clear explanations of links and the alt. Ks with specific links are great. Affs need to answer dirty K tricks. I do not find “Kritiks are cheating” arguments very compelling. Affirmatives should also have a defense of their ontology/epistemology/reps. Framing (what I should prioritize, what impacts matter, etc) is critical for both teams if they want to get ahead in this debate.

Paperless – Prep stops when you are done prepping and are ready to save your speech to a flash drive.

Be respectful of your opponents. You can be aggressive and competitive but speaker points will suffer if you cross the line and become disrespectful.