Murphy,+Liam

Shawnee Mission East HS 2013 University of Kansas 2017 I debated 4 years in high school at Shawnee Mission East in Kansas City. My senior year I competed and had success in both regional and national tournaments. I broke or competed in a break round at the following tournaments my senior year: Iowa Caucus, KCKCC, Glenbrooks, CFL and NFL. I am currently a freshman debating at the University of Kansas and an assistant coach for Blue Valley Southwest High School. Overview I think debate is a game, and I will vote for any argument as long as you can explain it sufficiently and you are winning the flow. I have debated a large spectrum of arguments ranging from specs to politics to Nietzsche. You can read anything in front of me and as long as you win the debate I will vote on it. I believe in tech over truth. I think debate should be fast, but if I don’t have it on my flow, it doesn’t get evaluated. I will be clear throughout a debate if I want someone to be clear. The first time I say it I won’t deduct speaks but every time after it will influence them greatly. Also you should slow down a little when making analytics or theory.

Specific Arguments Disads- When reading disadvantages the two parts of the debate that I think usually need more work are the link level of the debate and the impact framing of the debate. On the link level I think people generally need to read specific links and explain them sufficiently throughout the block and the 2nr. This specifically is a part of the debate that I would like to see fewer cards better explained than more cards. On the impact level I want to know a detailed explanation of how your impacts interact with other impacts in the round. I don’t evaluate blippy author/tag extensions- you should learn to extend warrants as opposed to authors.

Counterplans- Should be textually and functionally competitive. I think strategic and specific PICs are awesome and if they are competitive I love to vote for them. I want a detailed explanation in the block and 2nr of specifically what parts of the aff it solves and how it solves them. Here is how I stand on theoretical legitimacy issues before the debate round starts (I still will vote on whoever wins the theory debate) Ok: Conditionality, Debatable: PICs, international fiat, agent CPs, Consult Cps, delay Not Ok: Object fiat, 50 state fiat, word PICs

Kritiks- Personally these are the arguments I generally go for at this point in my debate career. I have a pretty good understanding of the most common Ks and have read a decent amount of literature. I understand all basic K mechanics but I hate when people are only explaining K tricks and don’t spend enough time explaining what my ballot looks like. I will not vote for a k unless you can explain past buzz words how the kritik interacts with the affirmative. I think that the alt should be able to solve or solve the root cause of some of the affirmative’s impacts in order to win the debate because I do believe that they should be able to weight their aff on some level. Speaker points will increase while reading the K if you do the following things: Impact framing- people get sloppy when evaluating k impacts but they should be argued like a DA explaining why they outweigh and turn the case. Alt- explaining how the alternative interacts with the affirmative. I want to know what world I am voting for at the end of the round and it is important to not read off of blocks, but rather to incorporate the affirmative directly Link- Finding specific links in the affirmative is always persuasive rather than just relating generally to the topic. The link debate is crucial when deciding the permutation.

Topicality- I default competing interpretation but I will vote on reasonability. I think potential abuse is a voter if it explained thoroughly. I think the biggest missed opportunity in T debates is the impact level of the debate. I want to know specifically what education is being gained and lost and who is specifically losing education.

K Affs- I think affirmatives should be about the resolution but don’t necessarily have to defend a plan that goes through the government. It is important in these debates to explain why you engage in the resolution and how you improve the debate activity. If the affirmative should always have an advocacy or role of the ballot or else I won’t know how to evaluate the round.

Impact Turns- Tight.

Prep- stops when you are done prepping. If you steal prep while flashing your speaker points will be trash.

Speaker Points: I always like a good joke! Try not to be a dick unless it increases your persuasiveness it will generally decrease speaks. Good strategies and strategic decisions will be a huge indicator on how I evaluate the round.

Tournaments Judged: Iowa Caucus, Kckcc, CFL Quals, CFL Nats Average speaker point this year: 27.85 Lowest speaker point this year: 27 Highest speaker point this year: 28.9
 * Statistics Last Year**

Feel free to ask question about anything before the round!

Any Questions: t.liam.murphy@gmail.com