Murphy,+Kevin

2A at Westwood high school in Austin Texas for 4 years (2011-2015).

(shout out to sam bhagwandin, I basically just copied 70% of his judge wiki. But please still read mine)

Whatever you want to say I will evaluate. Please read the tips/preference section at the bottom if that’s all you have time for.

+Which arguments are best in front of you?

I’d prefer critical ones, but I’m cool for any argument that you can make interesting. Just know that while I’m cool with everything, I can’t promise that I will be super proficient in what your politics DA is about, but I’m not going to take it any less seriously.

Make sure I get it, but also that I care. While it’s easier to embellish a critical debate with rhetorical flair and intrigue (I’m looking at you – Deleuze or Baudrillard folks), that doesn’t mean you should do it. Any flow is good as long as you put in time to explain and defend though.

I’m best for the arguments you can connect to your opponents’ ideas, be that by comparing impacts, turning case, or creating K links. I’m best for arguments you can explain accurately, but without contrived misdirection (perhaps “embellishing” the debate with “rhetorical flair” isn’t always the move—you gotta put in your explanatory work first).


 * If you’re just wondering what arguments I’m most knowledgeable about/proficient in: afro-pessimism, disabilities/crip theory, anthro, queer theory, all that jazz

Also if you’re reading a K aff against the Cap K, you should read internal link turns, perms, method comparisons, and DA’s to the alt instead of spending a lot of time debating the root cause flow cause honestly they’re probably going to win it, so you should just spend more time on what I’m likely to vote for.

+What stuff do you assume?

good defense *can* completely mitigate offense, and try-or-die is going to make-me-die if I hear it again. There’s a 1% risk I’ll vote on that argument.- sam’s joke but it still applies to me

you should flesh out competing interpretations/reasonability debates. I don’t want to have to default to competing interpretations.


 * --Good--: perms, dropped arguments = true (if explained), reject the arg not the team, fiat, counterplans, open cx, speed, the use of evidence, and things that are coconut-flavored.


 * --Bad--: (and real): Try-or-die, severance, intrinsicness, death, pain and suffering, misgendering opponents

Those are all negotiable by way of warranted arguments (except for misgendering opponents and coconut-flavored things being good)

+Talk about your beliefs on debating framework/T

Explain the link between your interpretation and your offense—why are you the only side that accesses that stuff. Treat this flow like a big impact comparison debate and also understand that I’m probably pretty biased against framework.

Inclusiveness is generally good—limitless ground is generally bad. Please navigate the waters in-between with care.

+What did you go for?

Neg --- On the negative we went for 1-off afro-pessimism every round

Aff --- The 2 aff’s I wrote and read were a fugitivity aff about slave pirates and a disabilities/crip theory aff about finding nemo

+Language K’s misgendering your opponents is never cool ableist metaphors are also never cool but only to certain words ( See – fine. Blind – bad. Stand – fine. Cripple/Paralysis – bad. Etc)

+Tips (preferences):

If you’re going for politics DA, please make sure you explain to me what the bill/act actually does. I don’t know what arguments people are running on this topic and it will go a long way for you if I know what it is you’re talking about.

Learn your opponents’ names and use them (sometimes).

Don’t misgender opponents


 * THIS >>>> *****Don’t say things are conceded or that your opponent “doesn’t have a warrant.” Both hurt your case by setting a low threshold for their response (all they have to muster is one cross application or one warrant….). Just say your stuff I’ll figure the rest out.*****

Tags shouldn’t summarize evidence; they should be an argument, made by the debater. Evidence is merely support for what *you’re* saying. Debate is about you, my friend.

Verbatim sam’s but still applies à Do comparison, not explanation. Saying “our evidence is amazing because it [has these characteristics]” doesn’t *compare* it to another thing, it explains something. If you need help, use the word “whereas.” For instance, “our impact is bigger because it [has these characteristics], WHEREAS theirs does not, BECAUSE it’s [from The Onion].” (hopefully your comparison is a little more complex than that...)

Say “chance” instead of “risk”