Murray,+Andrew

I debated at Colleyville Heritage High School for four years on the national circuit. I do not have considerable topic experience and hence would request that debaters take that into account while debating in front of me.

I will try to judge each debate based off of the quality of argumentation by the debaters and not based off of personal predispositions. I'll reward humor and intelligence with speaker points, but I discourage aggressive behavior if it borders on rudeness. You can speak as fast as you like but being incomprehensible is a poor way to get my ballot. If I can't understand what you are saying, I will not do a lot of work to piece together your arguments after the round. Similarly, I would prefer to make decisions based off of the quality of analysis by each team rather than evidence. I will call for evidence if I need to but I will not prioritize that over quality of argument. I favor good arguments over bad arguments, but I also went for coercion in high school so you're welcome to run whatever you like.

Below I will discuss my personal position on various arguments.

__**Topicality**__ I have no problem voting on topicality as long as it is persuasively argued. While I more or less favor competing interpretations, I will not hold the affirmative to an unreasonable burden of proof. I would suggest that a debater seeking to persuade me on topicality impact their standards beyond shallowly using catch phrases like "fairness and education." The word abuse is also rather annoying. Kritiks of topicality are generally a nonstarter for me unless you crush the other team. If you don't have a plan text, that is problematic. Defending the resolution is a plus, and while I will vote for performance affirmatives if argued well, I might prefer death.

__**Counterplans**__ I enjoy counterplan debates tremendously. While I would prefer that it doesn't come down to theory, I won't hold it against the affirmative team if they go for theory as long as they argue it well and can impact it. I generally think theory is not more important than topicality and also cannot be won unless the 1AR spends a considerable amount of time developing the argument (unless the 2NR botches it). I think conditionality is fine as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I think most process counterplans (consult, timeframe) are unfair and the negative must decisively win theory to permit that. I think PICs are great as long as they have a reasonable net benefit and are adequately competitive.

Run them. Politics is something I went for frequently but I also recognize politics disads are generally complete garbage. You don't need evidence to beat a disadvantage if they are truly stupid, so long as you correctly point out how stupid they are. Offense is great but defense is underrated. I won't vote on any risk of a disadvantage if the risk is literally infinitesimal because I think that puts an unfair burden on the affirmative.
 * __DAs__**

I am more than willing to listen to a kritik debate, but the debaters must understand that I will be able to more adequately judge a policy-orientated debate because that is where I am experienced. I am familiar with the literature of certain kritiks, but the more abstruse they are, generally the less familiar I am with them. As long as the negative argues the kritik in a persuasive, coherent fashion I am willing to vote for it. The more specifically you can apply the kritik to the affirmative, the more inclined I will be to agree with you.
 * __Kritiks__**