Miller,+Jeffrey

Assistant Policy Debate Coach, Fayette County High School, Fayetteville, GA (2006-2010) Director of Speech & Debate, Fayette County High School, Fayetteville, GA (2010-2011) Director of Speech & Debate, Marist School, Atlanta, GA (2011-Present)

I have experience coaching and judging in every event. Starting this year, I am exclusively coaching the Public Forum teams at Marist.

__**Public Forum Philosophy (updated 9/30/15)**__
I actively coach public forum debate on every topic for a decently sized program. I judge a lot of debates on the national circuit and a lot of practice debates each week within my team practices. I constantly fine tuning my perspective on what I want this activity to look like-- I work at the National Debate Forum each summer if that gives you an idea of the debates I enjoy.

I believe Public Forum is becoming a research based event and less about communication... and for that purpose I think your speeches should be more about your evidence and using your evidence to persuade me.

__Things you can count on__: I probably have done a ton of research on the topic, I will flow, and I will give you constructive feedback on the ballot as well as in an RFD after the debate.

__My decision:__ I evaluate most debates on an offense-defense paradigm, voting for the team who has the most offense at the end of the debate. I expect there to be a high level of impact and evidence comparison throughout the debate. My decisions are usually pretty quick because of the way I view judging. I am constantly writing an RFD throughout the debate - after each speech, I am evaluating each team and creating an RFD. This fluid RFD allows me to be pretty quick at coming to a decision. I prefer not to call for evidence but will if the evidence is clashing in the debate and the round requires me to do so.

__Argumentation specific:__ I think that the arguments you extend in the final focus should also be in the summary speech. I believe that the second rebuttal speaker does not necessarily have to answer every first rebuttal speaker's arguments, although if there is a huge argument that warrants a response (indict on your major piece of evidence, framework, etc -- you probably should reference it.) I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments because I think there are probably better arguments you could be making besides reading a rule book to me.

__Evidence exchange:__ If a team asks you for evidence in the debate, you should give them the card in context of the words you read - this does not necessarily mean the full text of the document. If they ask for the full text of the document, you should have it and you should give it to them with the portion specifically indicated. No one should prep during this exchange - if the exchange takes longer than 30-45 seconds to find, I will start your prep to find the card and probably dock your speaker points. Short version: come to the debate prepared and you won't have a problem.

__ **Policy Debate (Updated 1/1/16)** __ I will only judge policy debate at the NCFL National tournament and MBA. I have a background in policy debate but will not know specifics on the topic.

I have seen zero rounds on the surveillance topic and have not coached any teams on it. This is the first year of my 10 years coaching that I have not worked with a policy team - for the previous nine seasons I did work with policy teams and competed in policy myself in high school.

You should probably read and defend a plan in front of me. I prefer good, educational debates on the topic. I like clarity and strategy. A good strategic affirmative or neg strat will always win out over a thoughtless strategy. Impact arguments, compare arguments, make connections within the debate round.