Murray,+Steven

=Steven Murray= 4 years at Trinity, 4 times at the NDT. Currently coaching at Baylor and CE Byrd.

=**Philosophy: Good and evil are reversible. Boring is unforgivable. ** =

There comes a time when a debater realizes they have been on so many sides to so many issues they have lost track of any central debate identity as such. I do not consider myself a K or policy debater. I do not find myself deeply entrenched in either side of the framework divide. Instead, I find myself increasingly appreciative of the novel. Whatever your arguments, whatever side, impress me with something unique. Say something new. A politics DA can be the most fascinating thing in the world, or it can be the same Planet Debate arguments we have all seen a million times. That goes double for critique debate, given the incredible proliferation of back files. Whatever the form of your argument, breathe life into its content. Do not pilfer the graves of the fallen. Necrophilia is illegal in this country. You may feel free to strike me if you believe any of the following: 1. Imagining a legislative body taking action is substantially more absurd than imagining an unknown number of actors changing their understanding of Being. 2. Imagining an unknown number of actors changing their understanding of Being is substantially more absurd than imagining a legislative body taking action. 3. Because the affirmative team is not literally the USFG, the judge should vote negative on presumption. 4. Racism ended with the election of President Obama. Specifics : Topicality (not framework) <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Reasonability must be applied. Is the aff a reasonable interpretation of the resolution? Is the counter interpretation reasonable? <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Either side is best suited to pick a standard and weight it against others. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Evidence is best when it is in the context of the resolution and not Canadian milk production. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I have voted on terrible T arguments and voted against incredible ones. The difference has always been the application of standards and the comparison of evidence. I try not to be ideological about T. I don't think my ballot signifies anything except who better executed the technical components of the argument. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Topicality Framework <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Sometimes the negative is best suited to go for limits and ground, other times more education-style arguments are appropriate. I have no preference, but the 2NR should be wary of the affirmatives strategy. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Affs should make some defense on whatever the neg is going for. It's hard to compare limits with social death if neither side has defense against the other. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Should is not predictive. Think about it... <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Affs should have offense against the negatives interpretation beyond "you exclude us". At least talk about other things the negative excludes and why that's bad. I am unconcerned that your particular aff is excluded or your feelings are hurt. I am concerned with what other potentially important angles on the topic are eliminated and why that collective education among all of those types of affs is important. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I am more middle of the road on this than my last year in debate would indicate. I have gone for framework as many times as I have defended against it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Critiques vs. Policy Affs <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The aff read a plan. That doesn't mean they think they are the USFG. Get real. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The aff thinks the plan is a good idea, you should either prove it isn't a good idea, or that even if it is a good idea it's irrelevant. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Reps/Epistemology/Ontology/whatever; it's all only as important as you can apply it to the 1AC. "Ontology first" is not an argument until you problematize the ontology of the 1AC, etc. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The permutation is a test of the internal link, not the link. The permutation does not dispute whether or not the aff is capitalist, it disputes the importance of the affs instance of capitalism. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The phrase "perm do both" is meaningless. You have literally said "combine things: combine them". I am very willing to vote on permutation vagueness arguments if the aff says this without any further in-speech clarification. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Have an alt or don't, I could not care less. If you do not have one, find a way to deal with the affs uniqueness claims. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Critiques vs. Critiques <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The permutation is usually the focus of the debate and is where every other part of the round can be elucidated. You can never spend too much time on the permutation. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Isolating link arguments is important. Mini-titles, numbers, whatever, just let me know when one link ends and the other begins. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- 90% of the time I hear the word "method" the person saying it has no idea what it means. Don't be that person. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- You know what you're doing, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Disadvantages and Impact Turns <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Impact uniqueness matters. When someone kicks an impact it is either terminally inevitable or terminally solved for. This should matter elsewhere in the debate. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- When turning the case, solving an impact is generally more useful than making it inevitable. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Politics may or may not be intrinsic. Arguments directly related to the nature of intrinsicness are more persuasive to me than a debate about whether or not the politic DA in general is good. I can't imagine how a DA could be good for debate if it's patently false. I also can't imagine any ground for an aff intrinsicness claim if the negative has substantive evidence to the contrary (that goes beyond "PC finite") <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- "Linking less" matters. If there is a lesser magnitude of a link, or a lesser likelihood of triggering the internal link through a policy other than the plan text, that is grounds for a net benefit to a counterplan. Debating the magnitude of the link in these scenarios is more useful for me than generic theory debates about the nature of a link claim in general. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Counterplans <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Rarely are theory arguments on a counterplan a reason to reject the counterplan. Often those arguments are useful defenses of permutations. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- The phrase "perm do both" is meaningless. You have literally said "combine things: combine them". I am very willing to vote on permutation vagueness arguments if the aff says this without any further in-speech clarification. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- No argument is off the table. Consult, conditions, agent CPs, multi-plank counterplans, whatever. If you can defend it I will hear you out. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- I am an economist at heart. The phrase "opportunity cost" when proven true and deployed correctly will win me over faster than a big ole’ bowl of chocolate pudding. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: open_sans_bold; font-size: inherit; vertical-align: middle;">Theory <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Conditionality has to be a voting issue if the affirmative wins the other components of the debate. That is by no means a given. I can't see myself voting on 1 conditional world, but anything beyond that is up for debate. That said, I have a high standard for conditionality and expect very nuanced and advanced arguments. Reading prefabricated blocks at me is mutually exclusive with nuanced argument. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- In all other instances I will reject the argument and not the team unless told otherwise. If one side has a well-developed reason why (for example) 2NC CPs are a voting issue, just saying "reject the arg" without answering their warrants may get you in trouble. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;">- Theory arguments require an interpretation and at least one standard. <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: open_sans,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: middle;"> Conclusion:if you say "The Roose is Loose" at any point in the debate I will give you and your partner a bonus 0.3 speaks as a reward for reading a whole judge philosophy.