Murphy,+Morgan

Morgan Murphy

Morganmurphy41@gmail.com Debating at Indiana University (2013-2017) Debated at Oak Park & River Forest High school (OPRF) (2009- 2013)

In high school I had a reputation of being a more “critical debater.” That said, except for being marginally better read in critical theory than some members of the debate community, this should not impact your debate style. Debate is a game which, when well played, allows you the pedagogical space to articulate just about anything within reason. I try to enter the round with no bias towards one argument or another. I think no matter what argument you go for, it must have some impact, and you should explain how that impact functions in the debate.

Here is how I feel about some aspects of debate:

Topicality: I tend to default to a framework of competing interpretations and like to see strongly contextual evidential support for whatever interpretation you are trying to articulate. While interesting, cards that define substantial in the context of payments to cab drivers are vague. That said, if you are fundamentally and technically winning a T debate, the quality of your evidence does not interest me all that much. That the community seems to be heading in a particular direction with viable affirmatives or that the "core of the topic" has already been established has always seemed counter-intuitive to me.

CP/DA: The specific counter-plan, be it a PIC or advantage specific, coupled with a specific DA that the CP clearly avoids is the most compelling strategy to me and it gets to the core of what policy debate is about. I am not adverse to more generic debates; specificity will be rewarded. Absurdity will not. I do not think it is beneficial to read arguments because you "needed something more to say" in the 1NC or are looking for a quick time trade-off. Smart teams can and should write off dis-ads that are shaky on the link level to the point that they are clearly intended to be positions "they won't have blocks to." Smart block debaters will be making both intelligible impact comparisons in the context of their 1NC and will be utilizing additional external impact scenarios to deal with specific advantages or to garner external offense against the case. All of that being said, I still love good impact turn debates.

Critiques: Perfectly acceptable. That said, I like getting a sense that you have some idea of what you’re talking about—I feel like convoluted K debates is outright painful to watch. I find that most framework debates become a tedious, roundabout way of getting to the conclusion that “we get our impacts too.” So, save everyone some time, and, if you’re getting where you need to be with your impact debate, leave the framework debate alone. Unless you have a particular, offensive reason why the other team shouldn’t get any of their impacts, I don’t usually see framework debates as a round-deciding issue. Again, specificity will be rewarded; clear and specific links and alternatives are best. The 1AC is a great place to garner specific rhetorical and representational link examples--these should be integral to any effective critique strategy. The affirmative, in my opinion, is generally best served by focus on specific offense against the alternative and being smart about what a perm would actually look like--this is where the literature that most people read garners meaningful commentary which the affirmative should be able to leverage. The best perms should have well-articulated net-benefits which fundamentally interact with offense on the alternative and a pragmatic defense of the 1AC.

Theory generally: Make it clear and make it mean something. I hate nothing more than an incomprehensible block-spewing war. Specific, in-round abuse should be articulated if it's a reason to reject the team. If you want me to vote on theory then, excepting for an outright concession of theoretical objections, I’d best hear mostly theory in your last rebuttal. Ten seconds at the bottom of the 2NR will not win you the round. Conditionality and neg flex are generally good things in my book, but there are extremes which I could be persuaded to reject.

Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed, cheat, or be mean.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round or via email.