Bhattacharjee,+Risha

(If unsure about how philosophies work on Tabroom: go to Tabroom.com, click on the 'Paradigms' tab at the top, and then you can search for me by either my first and/or last name and I should pop up).
 * __*IMPORTANT:__ I highly suggest reading my Tabroom philosophy instead. I update it much more often and tend to forget to update accordingly here as well. **


 * __ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY __**
 * __General Stuff __**

I debated at Coppell High School in Dallas, Texas for 4 years (graduated '09) and then the University of Texas for another 5 (graduated '14). I am now coaching at the Georgia State University and Wayzata High School.

__TLDR__: I am most familiar with "policy" arguments. I have a growing interest in kritikal arguments, but have a lot to learn.

__Top-level__: I was a 1A/2N for most of college, and most of my 2NRs were counterplan/disad or framework. I did debate for UT/in D3, so I had my fair share of “K-debates” and generally just was around a lot of very intelligent, left-leaning debate people. I found myself personally going a bit more “left” (with a particular interest in arguments about gender) in my last year of debate. I see a lot of benefits in the way that “traditional policy debate” is done, but also think that certain practices, such as creating sentences by highlighting words that are a paragraph apart or stretching "offense/defense" to mean ridiculous things, are uneducational. That being said, I’m definitely more comfortable with “policy” arguments. I have generally viewed debate as a game, but can understand why others do not see it that way, and am open to alternate views of the activity. You should do what you do best, and I’ll reciprocate by trying my best to approach the debate with an open mind.

I think that racism and sexism (and other forms of exclusion) are problems in the debate community, and that debaters are oftentimes especially bad at seeing these problems because we like to think of ourselves as a liberal community, especially relative to the general population. I am uncertain as to what I think is the best way to combat forms of exclusion. I am also uncertain if having a topic hurts or helps. I do think that debaters are required by the nature of the activity to contest arguments that their opponents make, and that there is value in that contestation.

I’ll ask to be included in any email chains, but I will not open the speech docs in most situations until the debate is over. I think that reading along as a judge lessens the impact that good communication would otherwise have on my decision. Ultimately, debate is about persuasion. Sometimes, good spin outweighs a good card. But, spin gets interpreted differently when made while the judge is also reading the card. I generally don’t think it counts as prep when someone is saving a speech doc to a jump drive, etc. Pet peeves: “Always already” and “debate space”.

Good debating > good cards. I call for cards when a card is contested or if the debating on a specific argument is close. I don't care if your author is a genius, you have to make their arguments in your speech. I call for cards to make sure they back up what you're saying, not to make the arguments for you.

Card Clipping: Like I said above, I won’t ask for speech docs before a speech. So it’s impossible for me to follow along as a debater is reading. That’s just something to keep in mind if you want to call out another team for clipping cards. So, make sure there’s video if you want to make an accusation. I do think that card-clipping is absolutely unacceptable, and if an accusation is made, I will immediately stop the debate to resolve the dispute. If an individual is determined to have clipped cards, they will receive zero speaker points and the team will get an automatic loss. If it is determined that card-clipping did not occur, then I will assign speaker points based on what has happened in the debate so far, and assign the loss to the team who made the accusation. Purposefully being unclear just to get through a card faster is not much different from clipping cards. Since I obviously cannot decide intent, if you are unclear/it is hard to tell if you read a certain part of a card, I will err on the side of you did not.

__Specific Arguments __**

__Topicality__: Love it. Don’t really care what the topicality argument is. If the interpretation is “dumb,” the aff should be able to beat it without help via me giving the interp less weight. That being said, I often think that good explanations of why reasonability is the best framework to evaluate T debates are often persuasive. The aff will probably lose if they don’t read a counter-interpretation. I also am generally not convinced by most precedence arguments, or arguments about an aff being read all year means that it’s topical. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what the rest of the community thinks about whether or not an aff is topical.

__Theory__: I’m secretly a huge debate nerd and love thinking about debate, and so I kind of enjoy it when people go for theory in front of me (over/under on how long it takes for me to regret this statement?). I default to reject the argument not the team for most theory arguments other than conditionality bad, and have noticed in my judging that it is difficult to convince me otherwise. Gut-check, I probably think that conditionality is good, 50-state fiat is bad, and international fiat is bad. But I also only went for the states counterplan on the college/hs energy topics and the Turkey CP on the college democracy assistance topic, so I can definitely be convinced by the other side. Conditionality bad is probably harder to win in front of me, but it’s doable. I’m not a fan of counterplans that are plan-plus, but again, it’s really just about your debating. Something that is important for me in any theory debate is the question of literature/solvency advocates. The more evidence the neg has about their counterplan in comparison to the aff, the better off they are for the theory debate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Criticisms__: I explained my general proclivities above, but, things that are important for winning kritiks in front of me include: reducing the risk of the aff (how you go about doing this is up to you), having a clear explanation of what the alt is, and explaining the link arguments in terms of the aff. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I think that role of the ballot arguments are almost always not a real argument. They’re self-serving, arbitrary, and just a fancy way of saying that a certain impact should come first. The only role of the ballot imo is just to vote for the better debating. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Last, but not least, I think that line-by-line debating is almost always an important way of making it easier for me to make my decision. I will most likely get annoyed and dock your speaker points if you do not engage in some sort of line-by-line debating/go out of order a lot, unless you articulate a clear reason for why you are choosing not to do so.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Performance__: Do it if that’s what you want to do. I did go for framework a lot in college, and at the beginning, it was because I really believed in it. At the end of my career, and now, I see a lot of benefits in having a topic, but I also see a lot of reasons for why the way the topic is constructed and the way that debates occur, can be problematic. But just to be clear – when I debated, I viewed debate as a game. But I respect the fact that this isn’t how everyone approaches debate, and can be convinced that as a judge, I should also not view debate as a game. For performance arguments on the neg, I think that the most important thing for me is articulating a clear link to the aff.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Framework debates__: I find them super interesting. Like I said in my theory blurb, I’m a nerd and enjoy thinking about what is good or bad for the activity. I’m less convinced than I was before that framework is an argument that I believe in. I probably do think that predictability is useful for educational contestation of the aff. I also think that, often, topicality arguments are better than framework arguments against kritikal affs.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Disads__: I went for politics a lot and generally enjoy politics debates. Topic disads are obviously preferable. I think that risk of a link is not a thing. I’m not going to vote for you just because your counterplan solves the aff and you have an interesting FYI that the counterplan avoids. Sure, if you have a good link card/arg, and the aff has good link defense but has not won a solvency deficit to the counterplan, I will probably vote neg. I generally view debates in terms of offense/defense, but also think that what constitutes “offense” in the activity is sometimes overblown and unrealistic. Can the risk of the disad be zero? Yes. Do my calculations change if there is also a counterplan? Maybe. Depends on the debate. You have to actually have a reason for why there is a risk of the disad outside of the counterplan solves and offense/defense just means that there is.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Counterplans__: I like them. I like counterplans that are cut from aff articles. I like PICs, depending on how competitive they are and how much evidence there is in context of the aff. I’m undecided on functional vs. textual competition. The theory blurb above can be referenced for more of my thoughts too. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In terms of net benefits to counterplans, I think saying the counterplan links less than the plan generally makes little to no sense, unless you can win that linking more actually crosses the threshold to cause the link/impact, whereas linking less does not. Just saying that there is a risk that the counterplan links less is not an argument. Does it actually link less? Why? And does that actually change whether or not the impact happens? I’m obviously not just going to disregard the argument if a neg team makes it, but it probably won’t be difficult for an aff team to beat it in front of me. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If the 2NR doesn’t say anything, I won’t revert to the status quo. I used to be firmly convinced that the neg should always win that reverting to the status quo is a good idea, but I’m much more undecided about it now.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__Case debates__: Yes please. I think that zero risk of an aff is very much a thing, and something that neg teams are often too hesistant to go for. Sometimes affs just doesn't make sense and/or are lying about what their evidence says. Don't be afraid to call them out.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. I don’t like excessively rude people and my speaker points will reflect that. It annoys me when people call women "guys." It annoys me when people speak during their opponents' speeches and are loud/make it difficult to hear the speaker.