Miller,+Chris


 * Background:** I debated for Valley High School for 4 years and qualified to the TOC.


 * In General:** I will do my best to keep my personal preferences with regards to certain arguments or strategies out of my decision calculus. If an argument is defended properly, and has a reason why it merits my ballot, I will vote on it. That being said, it is sure helpful when debaters give very clear voters in the NR/2AR and makes my job a lot easier when they do.


 * Default View of Debate:** I will vote on any argument that is being won, and has a justification for why it is sufficient for my ballot. I naturally view the resolution as a proposition that the affirmative attempts to prove true, and the negative attempts to prove false. I'm open to other views of the resolution, but it should have a justification as to why it's legitimate to see the resolution that way.


 * Speed:** You can go as fast as you want in front of me, just understand that I'm a bad flower and if you blaze through an AC and don't slow down for standards, burdens, tags, and author names then I will not catch them. Consequentially, if I cannot understand an argument being made because you're saying it at the speed of light then I will not and cannot vote on it. SO, if you want to make sure that I'm getting all of your arguments down, slow down on the standards, burdens, tags, and author names.


 * Attire:** Please don't wear a collared shirt with a tie that is half way tied, sleeves rolled up, and a untucked shirt. Quite frankly it looks stupid and ugly. I also hate it when debaters wear hoodies over their nice clothes, if you're cold I would suggest wearing a jacket. It's not that I'll be less inclined to vote for you based on your apparel it's just more a thing that will lead me to give you a 28 instead of a 29.5/30.

If you expect me to vote on theory, please do not simply justify why fairness/education/etc. are //important// for how I evaluate the round. If you simply prove that fairness/education/etc. are significant, I will default to simply excluding the arguments/strategies that are being theoretically indicted. You need to justify why the abuse being perpetrated in the debate is sufficient for me to vote the guilty debater down in order to win off of theory.
 * Theory/Topicality:** I will vote on theory, just make sure you give clear instances of abuse and how it impacts in the round enough for me to vote there. I enjoy hearing theory when it is run well, however I'm not going to ignore an awful shell just because it is awful. If a shell is won then I will vote on it, regardless if the abuse is a bit sketchy. Good debaters can beat bad shells, and if they can't then they don't deserve to win anyway. I'm also open to RVI's and arguments against theory in general (but just know that I think a semi-competent theory debater can easily beat any "theory bad" block).


 * Critical Arguments:** I'm not going to lie to you and say that I'm comfortable with critical arguments, because I'm not. If you plan on running something that is critical, then you're going to have to explain in normal English. It is absolutely essential that you're not only reliant on the rhetoric that your author uses, but also explain the arguments in your own words so that I can have a chance to understand what is being said. As a general rule, If you're reading a critical case then speed reading it will not be to your benefit (because quite frankly I'll have a difficult time just flowing the case, let alone understanding how each argument functions). **I would suggest reading at conversational pace if you plan on running critical arguments in front of me.** I really don't want to drop someone because I don't understand their case, but I promise you I will.


 * Speaks:** I think that debate is a persuasive activity, each debater is trying to convince someone (the judge) to do something. I like to see friendly debaters. I encourage you to have a pleasant tone, look up and smile at me every once and a while, and overal just have fun with the activity. If I can tell that you're making a genuine attempt to be nice to myself and to your opponent then you will be very pleased with your speaks. On the flip side, I will not tolerate assholes. Often times I see debaters act disrespectful to their opponents in cross ex and rebuttals, don't do this. Don't be a prick when answering or asking questions, and don't be a prick during your rebutals. If you're acting like a jackass during round expect to get a dirty look from me and then expect your speaker points to go down significantly. Do not test me, I may still vote for you but if you're a prick or an asshole I promise you I will give you a 23-25.