Murphy,+Jim

I walk in the room a pretty straightforward Policy-maker, but am open to being something else if you make persuasive arguments that I should view the round differently. My overall preference is to vote for a compelling story, which first and foremost means it has to get onto my flow. I'm not fast; I am, however, stubborn about not vote for something I didn't get properly. I'm also reluctant to read lots of cards after the round because I think the debaters should be making that evidence (and its implications) clear. Trying to make me go at a faster pace than I can go leaves a big opening for the other team. That said, I'm willing to vote on topicality or a theory argument as long as I can get it all down.

I suppose the only other things to mention specifically are critiques and blatantly offensive behavior/argumentation. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on K arguments, but that's mostly because I do think that debaters should have a clear advocacy in the round. It's not that I don't want to hear philosophy in a policy round - that's fine - but I don't like to hear philosophy abused and distorted, and I think that running a critique implies a higher degree of advocacy for the argument than run-of-the-mill policy arguments. I need a good link story, and a clear idea of how your critique undermines their line of argument (Don't just tell me to rethink; tell me why rethinking is a better option than the other team's giving me). As for really offensive argumentation and/or treatment of your opponents, I'm a teacher first, and I feel responsible to treat the behavior the same way I would for falsifying evidence. It's a loss, zero points, and a long chat with your coach. Competition is a great motivator, but it's not every-thing. Anything else? Feel free to ask.