Bhatnagar,+Roshni

//Updated December 2011//

I debated LD at Harker in San Jose, California for three years and graduated in 2011. I now coach for Harker and go to Northwestern.

I’m fine with speed and will say clear twice. It helps if you slow down for author names and analytics (spikes/analytical framework arguments, warrants in a theory standard, etc.) There are no arguments that I won’t vote on, but if your arguments are generally pretty confusing (dense moral philosophy, very critical arguments) then it’s your responsibility to explain them well in the round. Most critical, discursive, and pre-fiat/post-fiat arguments are fine. Given that your arguments are well explained, I will listen to anything.

In general, I default to a policy style method of evaluating the round (standards debate, arguments linking back to each standard, and impact comparison) but I am open to any other method of evaluation that you give me.

The easiest way to win my ballot is to WEIGH: Arguments are irrelevant without impacts and impacts are (very often) irrelevant without weighing – thus, weighing, explaining the function of your arguments in the context of the round, and giving me a clear decision calculus will help your speaks and most likely win you the round.

Theory: I see theory as a way for debaters to check the game of debate and to shape the activity in a way that makes sense to them. I really appreciate theory when the abuse is clear and you use in-round examples to indicate the abuse. It's fine if you choose to run theory simply for the sake of strategy or as a time suck, but the abuse (ie why your opponent links) needs to be clear. That being said, I’m not telling you to run or not run theory a particular way, those are only my preferences – you can run any type of theory you like.

I default to a competing interpretations framework for theory, but I am certainly willing to use reasonability if that’s justified in round. I don’t think the RVI is particularly compelling, but you are welcome to run it and it’ll be your opponent’s job to explain how not compelling it is.

Please put theory in a shell and give it a voter (or any other type of impact) – pointing out that a particular argument is unfair means nothing without an impact.

Topicality: I view topicality similar to theory in that it needs to be in a shell and have some type of impact for the ballot. In my mind, topicality debates are usually better if there is a competing interpretation, but I meets alone are fine too. Topicality can be very strategic as long as you're prepared to debate the quality of your definitions if your interpretation is particularly esoteric.

I’m pretty lax about extensions, so if offense is conceded you can just extend the author name and start explaining the impact/function of the argument.

You absolutely must be polite/nice to your opponent, I have basically no tolerance for rudeness. Coming off as cocky to your opponent or trying to be funny when you’re really just being mean is the fastest way to hurt your speaks.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them before the round. Good luck!