Liu,+Maria

Maria Liu Assistant Debate Coach - The Harker School Assistant Debate Coach - The University of Michigan

Currently a 2L at the University of Michigan Law School. Debated for 3 years in high school, 4 years for the University of Michigan and worked at the Michigan Debate Institutes for the 2009-2012 summers. Since I graduated undergrad in April 2012, I have become pretty disconnected from the activity so more explanation may be needed for me, but I will try my hardest to keep up.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask.


 * Offense Defense Paradigm** - I do not necessarily default to this. Smart defensive arguments I find typically persuasive. If you can figure out a disconnect in the slew of internal link chains and effectively debate it, I am not worried about discounting an argument entirely.
 * Dropped arguments are not necessarily true** - Oftentimes arguments are not responded to directly and sometimes, they do not need to be. This does not mean that you get to arbitrarily pick which arguments you get to answer; it means that you have to strategically pick ones you answer.
 * Impact calculus/Impact Uniqueness/Framing-** All very very important. If you control things like impact escalation, uniqueness, inevitability, etc - it puts you in a good spot. Overviews are often too long. When you say "new piece of paper for the overview," I think "unnecessary."
 * Speaking -** Clear and Quick = good. Which one is more important? Clarity. If I can understand almost all the words in your speech. you will get a boost in speaker points. Speaking into your computer is no good. If I yell clear 2x and you don't get clearer...its no good.

I eliminated the section where I explain my preferences for specific arguments, because I don't think it was particularly useful. I try to be a judge that people feel comfortable reading whatever argument they want in front of me. I, admittedly, have preferences just like any judge, but understand debate is a strategic game. I do think that the best debaters are the most flexible and that flexibility will be rewarded if demonstrated. I understand debate is a hard activity and value the hard work that debaters put into the activity. I try my best to match that in my judging.

I understand that debate is a stressful, heated game but that is no excuse for inappropriate or poor behavior. It, most importantly, is an educational activity that should benefit both sides. Be respectful to your opponents, your partner, your judges, and anyone else who is in the debate. No discrimination will be tolerated and if you cross the line, your speaker points will be dropped significantly.

I am a firm believer that you are only at your best when your opponents are also at their best. With that said, I value honesty and disclosure and dislike teams trying to be deceiving before, during and after debates. Do not tell only part of the truth during pre-round disclosure, do not cheat in rounds, etc. Do what you hope other teams will do for you.

If this is not helpful - I apologize. Please feel free to ask me any questions.