Liu,+Matthew

Matthew Liu

I debated at Bellaire High School for four years and I currently attend Texas A&M.

Speed: Speed is fine. Being unclear, not so much. I will tell you to be clear when this becomes an issue. When I do this, please speak clearer and not just louder.

Topicality: Since it seems to be so prevalent in the community, I tend to default to a competing interpretations framework without really thinking about it. However, I'm more open to reasonability and ground/education arguments than most judges if there's enough defense on limits.

Disads/Counterplans: Strategic counterplans make for some of the greatest debates especially when they're case-specific. I'm not a big fan of counterplan theory. It's boring, usually not resolved in high school debates, and sometimes unflowable.

Kritiks: This is the argument I have the least experience with. While I've read my share of Zizek and Foucault, I don't process their jargon as fast as hardxcore K debaters expect me to. Framework, the role of the ballot and how it interacts with the plan are the most important issues to be resolved in the round.

Case: My favorite type of argument. I find these debates to be the most depthful and educational. Well-articulated solvency arguments are often what makes your generic states+politics strat into a winner.

Finally, my most important belief is in negative presumption absent a counterplan. In the event of a close tie or when the negative wins near absolute defense, I default to the status quo rather than granting affirmatives their 1% micro-solvency.

Make historical/cultural references, and creative analogies! They never fail to make the round more enjoyable.