Bindra,+Amit

**Amit Bindra's Judge Philosophy **

Below are some of my thoughts on debate. However, since 2009, I have (a) cut maybe two debate cards, and (b) only judged at CDL or local, tournaments in the Chicagoland area.

I debated for 2.5 years at Michigan State in college (2005-07, 2009), and for 4 years at Brookfield Central High School (2001-05). I cleared at the NDT twice in college (07, 09), and the TOC in high school (05). However, I'm pretty removed from debate right now.

During my debate career, I was fairly policy oriented. I will do the best that I can to conform to the debaters and their preferences, but my knowledge level for critical and performance based debates is low. My feedback for policy oriented rounds will also be more productive for the debaters.

Finally, I'm still figuring out how to properly award speaker points, especially now that the norm involves giving out tenths of a speaker point. So I apologize in advance. Please feel free to email me after rounds if you have additional questions.

**Cross-Examination ** I flow CX, and the best debaters make this the most important speech. I think a lot of teams make good connections in CX, but fail to apply these connections to the actual round.

**Blippy Arguments ** I am incredibly unlikely to vote for unsubstantiated claims that the other team allegedly did not answer. I will give the rebuttals a lot of leeway to respond to "they dropped x is a voting issue." Especially when "x" is barely an argument. See most CP theory arguments.

**Topicality ** I typically vote for the "best interpretation" for debate. Generally, that means some sort of offense/defense paradigm. I do not generally like just defensive arguments. An interpretation coupled with some reasonability arguments could get my vote for the affirmative.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Theory ** <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I lean negative on almost all theory questions, and I am incredibly unlikely to vote affirmative on conditionality bad, no neg fiat, etc. At the same time, this doesn't mean the affirmative shouldn't make these arguments, or that the negative can concede these arguments. There are strategic benefits from a time stand point for the affirmative. But if the 2ar is going for conditionality bad, and the 2nr made some arguments in response, I am likely voting negative pretty quickly.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Disads/CPs ** <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">These are the debates I prefer, and debates I'm probably the most qualified to judge. I fall into the "offense/defense" category of judging. I generally think there is a risk of the disadvantage, though it might be very small. I have no problem if the negative reads multiple conditional frameworks or counterplans.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Critiques/Performance/Framework ** <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">This definitely isn't my forte - I don't know too much about the literature (surprisingly, I don't spend my free time reading Baudrillard and Zizek).

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">At the same time, I think "policy oriented" teams do a poor job responding to criticisms or performance arguments. I am unlikely to vote for framework in these debates, mostly because I think these debates are rarely nuanced. <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">For the most part, I'm probably closer to the middle regarding non-plan/performance debates than one would guess given my debate background (i.e. I vote for the team running the performance - even when not defending the plan - about half the time). However, I'm not well-educated on these debates, so I have the potential to make errors in judgment.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">Also, I truly do not understand the value of reading a former debater's or current coach's thoughts on framework. I really don't understand how attaching the evidence to a debater/coach's name adds any credibility to the evidence.

<span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">**<span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Other ** <span style="font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">I reward teams with better speaker points for not wasting my time when they do not need to. For example, if you are in a non-competitive round, you are not required to use all of your prep time. Obviously, make you sure you are able to win the round. But I will reward higher speaker points for being considerate of my time.