Mueller,+Eric

Overall I am a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Try to make CPs consistent with each other and consistent with arguments in the round if possible. If not, tell me specifically what net benefit works with the CP and try not to go for contradictory positions in the 2NR in an either/or way.

I have been out of the “flow game” for a while but will do my best to keep up. I’ve been fine in practice rounds and speed is not a problem. But think “big picture” instead of “line by line” here. I was sort of like that before anyway. Now I certainly see it that way.

I sometimes read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here.

I am amenable to kritik arguments. I have in the past been willing to vote for it on the affirmative as well. I like the methodology arguments related to kritiks and see them as advanced attacks on all the claims the other teams make. So when you lose on a kritik with me, it is often because I believe that your framing of the discourse and claims of the case have lapsed into indeterminacy because they are based on fundamentally flawed reason and analysis. I also see kritiks as solvency arguments and case turns and will allow them to be deployed as discursive impacts and as policy turns. I can be persuaded on framework either way. But frankly I break somewhat in favor of the kritik on it so don’t be surprised if they kick framework and go for policy turns and I allow it. I might also weigh policy in different way qua kritik so just because you have a case impact doesn’t mean I agree it outweighs kritik impacts.

I’m not a big theory guy. Meaning, I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary. One exception is topicality. I don’t think there are great T arguments on this topic. But I love a good T debate. Go for T only in the 2NR and I will take it seriously. Combine it with other arguments as hedges and I might not.

I give the 1AR a lot of leeway in interpretation 2AC claims. I like when affirmative teams group things and explain in the 1AR as long as the answers to negative arguments are in the group. I like evidence. Even in the rebuttals. Nothing cements a claim like solid evidence. I like good evidence. But read the entire part of the card you want me to read. I may not be as impressed when you cherry pick words and expect that to provide the warrants for evidence.

All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR. Always remember case impacts against the disads. Certainty of case vs. risk of disads is often a winner.