Murray,+Tyler

** __A little about me__ ** : I debated for four years at Southern Methodist University and I am currently a graduate student at University of Pennsylvania. I will keep my flow as tight as you let me. By this I mean be clear in what you want me to have on my flow, don’t go as fast as possible through theory if you want me to actually vote there because odds are I will not get everything and if you are going for a K, explain it (more about this later).

**// Now for the moment you’ve been waiting for… //** I believe debate is both a game and a way to develop strong communication skills that empower us to create change. With that in mind, I don’t have a strong bias toward any particular types of arguments, just specific ways in which I evaluate them.

** __Topicality__ ** : It’s the ticket to the dance and is always a voting issue. How do I evaluate T, though? My analysis is grounded in the competing interpretation debate and I tend to evaluate predictable limits as the impact to most of the standards. That being said, don’t just assume that since you are running a popular affirmative it is automatically presumed to be topical; however, I do believe interpretations should be reasonable and certainly not outlandish.

** __Theory__ ** : I will vote here if and only if it becomes a substantive issue. Again, don’t expect me to catch each and every blip in the 30 seconds you spend on theory. Also, I don’t find potential abuse arguments very persuasive but that does not mean there is no place for the argument. I’m prone to vote on conditionality if there is abuse that can be clearly articulated.

** __Disads/Case__ ** : I think these arguments are great ways to win a debate but if this debate is not your style then stick to what you like. If you are going to go for a case turn or claim the DA turns the case, you should explain why! I don’t want to do this work for you because I stay close my flow (in other words, what was actually said during the debate). This is a fair standard to have because it forces you to better communicate your arguments. I will take this opportunity to make it clear that this is my expectation for every argument: give analysis. ** __CPs__ ** : I tend to believe counterplans are fair; thus, I will probably err negative on the theoretical issues. The counterplan needs to be competitive.

** __K’s__ ** : Don’t assume I know your K or have ever read your evidence. If you can do the following, you should be fine: 1. Explain your alternative in a way that makes sense to me. Don’t leave me asking any of the following: What’s the role of the ballot? What does the alternative actually do? How does the alternative overcome the links? 2. That being said, what are the links? How does the affirmative cause the problems you claim it does? It is good practice to pullout specific parts of the 1AC that prove the link(s). 3. Don’t be generic. This is different than saying don’t read a generic K. I mean you should be specific and give concrete analysis of your K.

** __Performance__ ** : If this is your thing, then I expect you to defend something rather than be a moving target without a starting point for discussion. I just need something to ground my decision in.

//**Now for a few housecleaning items for those paperless teams out there****…**// Prep time goes until the flash drive is pulled out of your computer and handed to the other team! Also, I should not have to say this but you would be surprised at the number of teams that do this… Flash your actual speech, not just a file with more cards than you could read in a given round.