Mukherjee,+Rohit


 * Bellarmine CP '13**
 * UC Berkeley '17**

Berkeley '14 will be the first time I'm on the other side of a debate round, and I'm hoping to see some excellent debates from what I know is a very tough pool.

In terms of my past, what you need and want to know is that I am 100% a SLOW debater. I have gone to one fast tournament, I've been to VBI once, and that's about it in terms of my fast experience. I've been to state as a sophomore and a junior, placing top 6 both times, and to nationals as a junior, placing top 32. No VBT, no TOC, nothing crazy fast.
 * Speed:**

What that means is while I understand spreading at a decent speed, I will not be able to understand a 400 wpm NDT finals level of spreading. If you're going too fast, I will say "slow" twice with no cost to your speaker points or argument. After that, you'll lose some speaker points. I don't need layjudge treatment, but I do believe in clarity above speed and I think it befits you if I hear your argument.


 * Argumentation:**

Be logical. As a high schooler, I made my name on evidence and having a specific answer to everything. I will prefer hardcore stats to logic 100% of the time, because things don't happen the way you'd think all the time and I have had plenty of experience with people trying to squirm out of being plain wrong with "logical" rebuttals of numbers. It doesn't fly. That being said, if something is clearly insane, I will be looking at the numbers to make sure they aren't fudged or from an illegitimate source. As soon as debaters have conflicting/no evidence, though, I will look to logic. Whoever makes more plain sense will win the round. I love layered arguments and hitting your opponent at the standard level. Value debates are kind of dumb in my opinion; I don't want to hear 3 minutes on justice vs societal welfare. I'd much rather hear 3 minutes on the standard, or even better, contention-level arguments. Linking your arguments to the standard is very good, and I'd say it's required if things are at all complicated. If it comes down to a solid util debate, you don't have to treat me like a 3 year old, but I would definitely prefer to see weighing in terms of life vs rights, freedom, etc.

I like to think of myself as a rational being, but I am not a complete tabula rasa. If you want to make nuke war/genocide claims, go ahead, but they're going to have to be believable by the common person. If it's some ridiculous link chain, I will not be very persuaded. The more ridiculous disaster scenarios are, the less your opponent will have to work for me to disregard your scary, nonsensical impacts.

In terms of the debate itself, I like standard, topical, good debates. I believe debate is meant to educate debaters about serious modern issues, and that if you run some gender K every round, every topic, you aren't getting that education at all. Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn about things you'd never give time of day, and abusing that opportunity makes me sad. In a perfect world, 100% of the debates I see would have completely topical, case-based arguments and I'd vote solely on contentions linking to the standard. I don't like gimmicks, non-topical VI's, a priori's, or theory very much. But guess what? I'm a rational guy. I understand the way the game is played. If you go for one of these strategies, as long as you actually win the round, you will get the W and the speaks you deserve from me. If you play StarCraft, I'd put it in these terms: I'd love to go 3 quick bases against Protoss every game, but if I scout a 2gate, I'll make some lings. I'll adapt.

Finally, I don't like ridiculous standards being placed on the opponent ("He/she has to prove this will work in 100% of cases"). I will uphold that standard until your opponent points it out as being unfair, but again, the more unfair the standard (unless you got it from concessions, in which case definitely go for it), the less work they'll have to do to refute it.

TLDR: I'd like to see a fair, level debate with an unbiased framework and an emphasis on the case, specifically contention level and standard level arguments. A gentleman/woman's agreement, if you will. By no means does this mean you have to stick to this model; I will vote on plans, theory, a priori arguments, and even presumption. But I'd rather not.


 * Cheating/abusive behavior:**

I will not tolerate any fudging of evidence. Inserting clarifying words/grammar is okay, but if you change the meaning of the evidence in any significant way, including deliberate misinterpretation that is pointed out, you will be getting very low speaks and a loss. I will be calling for important evidence at the end of the round. I absolutely do not want to have a round come down to an evidence challenge, but I absolutely will vote on one. Having been on the other side of evidence challenges that were last-ditch efforts to win a lost round, I will also not be happy with any kind of abusing challenges. Debate is a competitive activity, but you have no right to try and blacken your opponent's reputation to get a win. Again, don't be abusive and you will have nothing to fear from me.

In terms of cross examination, I'd like you to be aggressive, pressuring, and pick your opponents to pieces. I highly respect debaters who can bring arguments to the ground with a few incisive questions; catching your opponent in well placed traps or picking up on flaws in evidence will definitely raise your speaker points. I think C-X is the most important part of the debate in many cases. Do not mistake "aggressive" for "overbearing". Give your opponent time to finish his/her response. If they're stalling, I will know it. I've been to state. Cut them off at a reasonable time, but I do not like to see people having no chance to answer. You can be aggressive without raising your voice or becoming impolite. C-X does not count on my flow, but I will definitely accept logical ties to stuff mentioned in C-X.

Thanks for reading if you didn't already veto me, and good luck at this/future tournaments!

TLDR: Be nice, logical, respectful, and smart.