Murray,+Keith

__**Background:**__

Well, I suppose the first thing you should know is that I graduated from **Millard West high school in Nebraska** in May of 2011. So I’m young. Because of this, I haven’t read every philosopher out there. **I debated LD for four years under Fred Robertson, mostly on the Nebraska circuit**, and on rare occasions on the national circuit. I ran traditional philosophers (think of Locke more than Heidegger), and rarely used anything that was written in the last century unless it was talking about specific elements of the resolution. **Thus, I am a traditionalist in most regards**. I think that in a debate round word economy is important. Whichever author makes the point the strongest and fastest is the author I prefer. Old or new isn’t the point, the point is the argument. (Unless it’s Ayn Rand. I don’t like her. You can run her, I’ve picked up debaters who used her, but it’s always followed by a rant about how stupid she is, and how much harm she did to smart and naïve individuals)

__**My Ballot:**__


 * To be honest, I’m not sure how you’d win my ballot. My best advice is to be the better debater.** But here are a few pointers. Remember when you were little and played connect the dots? I should be able to do that to my flow. You should take the resolution, frame it, draw a line from there to your value, another line from there to your criterion, (assuming you choose to use a value and criterion) draw a line between your criterion and contentions. In your rebuttals you should draw lines from your previous speech to the current one, and reconnect the dots (resolution, definition and framework, value, criterion, contention level arguments). **To have a successful extension you need to extend the claim warrant and impact. Cross application is extremely useful**, take advantage of it when it’s strategically smart to do so, and if you have time when addressing your opponent’s arguments, it doesn’t hurt to point out where they failed to connect the dots.

When I’m trying to decide how to vote, the first thing I ask myself is, “**what is the most important thing in this round?**” Typically the value debate is the answer, from there I think **how should I decide what meets, achieves, or increases the value**. It shouldn’t be surprising that this is usually the criterion. Then I decide **which debater does the most, gets closest too, or increases the most important thing** (again, typically the value), and **avoids whatever could hurt the most important thing.**


 * I do not default**. If the debaters are tied in every way shape and form, I’d sooner flip a coin or vote off speaks than say I default neg/aff. Thankfully I doubt it’ll get that close.

Good luck, and have fun! It’s your round, **debate what you want to debate.**

__**For some specifics:**__ __**Speed:**__ **I’m not the best**. I will say clear if I either can’t keep up or you’re slurring your words, but like most judges, I’ll only do this once. For the most part I’m fine with speed, so long as it’s clear, especially when you read off your tags. When you start losing clarity, I start losing cards, impacts, warrants, taglines, and so on. You’re the best judge of your clarity, adjust based on how confident you are in your abilities to be clear. If you’re still unsure in round, **look up at me and see if I have a clueless expression on my face. If I do, you should probably change something.** __**Theory:**__ **Honestly I’ve never heard a good theory debate**. You can bring it up if you’d like, but I do feel that when it is generally brought up, it’s either run poorly or not justified. While that isn’t true for every theory debate, I feel that it does hold true for most rounds. Usually it’s just a way for debaters to avoid arguments which they know they are losing or to avoid arguments that require work to win. Too often theory is used to destroy discourse and education, rather than save it. **You can run theory in front of me when abuse is occurring. That is when I encourage it to be used. If there isn’t abuse, I advise you steer clear of it.** __**A priori arguments:**__ **I don’t like them**, and don’t try and hide them from me. I could easily miss them, and if you present them to me you should have solid reasoning why that specific argument justifies my ballot being signed before I consider anything in the rest of the debate. **Like I said, I don’t like them, and that’s because that justification rarely given**. Without that justification, they become annoying rather than beneficial. __**Nontraditional stances**__: I enjoy them. Remember I’m a traditionalist in many regards, so if you do run a nontraditional stance, you’re not guaranteed my ballot. If your case catches me off guard and strikes me as odd, you should probably explain why my shock is a good thing for debate, education, or whatever other important things exist. **Don’t just run something crazy and expect me to understand instantly**. I can assure you that I will not. I’m not smart, so you need to make what you’re arguing as clear to me as possible.

__**Something to not do**__: purposefully try and confuse your opponent. Remember, if your opponent doesn’t understand your arguments because they’re confusing and unclear, **I’m likely to not understand either**.