Bhatia,+Arti

Arti Bhatia I debated for four years at Colleyville Heritage High School on both the national and local circuits. I am also an instructor at Mean Green Workshops at UNT.

My decision calculus is fairly simple. I see the resolution as a comparison of advocacies. I will first look to who is winning the criterion and then see who is meeting that standard by explicitly impacting to it. The weighing mechanism does not have to be a traditional criterion, but it does need to be well justified and explain how I should use it to evaluate arguments. Debates on the framework level should also be relevant and interact with other arguments in the round. In other words, please do not engage in pointless, vague debates about how awesome some sentence is in your framework while leaving out the explanation of how I use the framework argument to evaluate the round. If I am told to look to an argument before the criterion, then the warrant for why that argument is “a priori” must be very clearly explained or else I will not vote for it. Pre-standard arguments must also be clearly labeled the first time they are presented.

When deciding who meets the criterion, I will pay close attention to two things. First, I will look to whether you are thoroughly extending the structural components of your arguments. This means that the claim, warrant, and impact should be extended in each speech; it is not sufficient for you to mention an author name and tagline. I will also not vote for arguments that are unwarranted or arguments that I don’t understand. Second, I will pay attention to whether those extensions are consistent. Extend your arguments in a logical order and be extremely explicit as to how each argument functions to make the decision much clearer for me.

Weighing is appreciated. However, do not just blindly attach labels to your impacts, but weigh in terms of the criterion and be comparative with your opponent’s arguments.

I’d prefer not to see theory for the sake of theory and will evaluate it if you demonstrate actual abuse. I will be more persuaded by arguments for why I should defensively reject the arguments instead of proactively reject the debater.

If you choose to run critical arguments, then the links must be very clear. I am also not extremely familiar with critical literature so please be thorough in your explanations of dense evidence. In CX, do not attempt to avoid questions that clarify your position or further obfuscate the round by repeating the complex rhetoric in your evidence.

I can flow a fast debate, so long as it is very clear and has a purpose. I will say "clear" twice and put my pen down after that. I hate speed for the sake of speed and think it should be used to add to the quality of arguments in the round. If an argument is very blippy, chances are it has no warrant and I will not vote for it. It is very important that you slow down on author names and on the relevant parts of your warrants. Signpost well and pause after directing me to a different part of the flow.

Lastly, please don’t be rude. Feel free to respectfully ask questions before and after the round. Good luck!