McCoy,+Andrew

I debated for four years at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix, and now debate at Georgetown University.

Below are my defaults, but contrary arguments in the debate will **always** override them. I will try to avoid intervening to my utmost ability, but I am human.


 * Pre-round quick summary:**

Do whatever you do best. Tech informs truth. Reject the argument unless conditionality or told otherwise. Good analytics outweigh bad cards/arguments. Competing interpretations. I will reward smart, well-researched arguments. Be nice and don’t cheat.


 * The specifics:**

Quality outweighs quantity, unless it is a quantity of distinct warrants. Spin and analysis is important, and the best debaters will compare their evidence to their opponents’.
 * Evidence:**

They should be textually and functionally competitive.
 * CPs:**

I don’t love process, consult or other counterplans that compete off of immediacy/certainty. That being said, I went for them a fair amount, and understand their strategic purpose in the negative arsenal. I will generally err aff on theory debates for those types of CPs, but a solvency advocate (ideally normative) will go a long way towards defending the theoretical legitimacy of those CPs.

Word PICs are awful. Again, I read them, but against affs that don't really play around with discourse/reps/etc., I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to read them **unless** you have a solvency advocate or some very good evidence that change the functional result of the plan.

Link controls direction of uniqueness.
 * DAs:**

I err towards granting the aff implementation. That being said, “we get aff” is distinct from “role of the ballot” or “the judge is…” The latter two determine what I do with/how I evaluate the aff. Generally, the best K debates are the most specific and well-researched. Turns the case, historical examples, case-specific application of link arguments are all essential. I think value to life arguments are dumb. That being said, don't drop K "cheap shots" or you will most likely lose.
 * Kritiks:**

It's just an impact debate. I don't think T is a priori if you can win offensive reasons to include your aff. Reasonability seems rather silly, but is a question of your interpretation being reasonable rather than the aff being reasonably topical.
 * Topicality:**

Condo: neg unless contradictory/more than 2 --I will not kick the cp/alt unless the 2nr tells me to. Presumption: towards less change. Intrinsicness: opportunity costs. CPs: solvency advocate is the threshold for legitimacy. The more normative and comparative, the better. Plan inclusive CPs: probably good
 * Theory (by argument):**

These are just impact debates. If you're neg, make sure you tie your internal link claims--aff causes an unlimited topic :(--to an actual impact--just winning the internal is an fyi.
 * K affs:**

I will reward:
 * Speaker points:**

Smart arguments Comparative impact calculus Good research Case-specific strategies Humor Efficiency Clarity Embedded clash

Card clipping is an auto-loss, but is difficult to prove.
 * Ethics/Offensiveness:**

Flexible unless tech problems get egregious.
 * Paperless:**