Miller,+Ryan

=**Ryan Miller**= =**Dallastown**=

Bio
1997-2001: National Circuit LD debater, including TOC bids, but not among the very best 2001-2003: ADA Circuit JV Policy debater for Boston College, extremely nationally competitive 2001-Present: Northeast Region LD judge, at least 50 rounds/year 2002-2005: Active Northeast Region Policy judge, now only occasional (though only b/c Dallastown does not have policy debaters for me to cover, not because I am uninterested in being hired) 2006-Present: Alumni Debate Coach, Dallastown Area High School, Dallastown, PA

Basic Philosophy
I consider myself very tabula rasa and flow-oriented. The debate is what you make of it, and I have been known to vote on arguments I found pretty personally unpleasant, or even stupid. I won't, however, vote on any argument without a warrant or which isn't extended, as any argumentative rebuttal to those rules rapidly becomes circular.

What Good Debaters Do (How to easily win rounds and get great points)
In decreasing order of importance:
 * 1) They make arguments which have a logical form including unique links, unique internal links, and unique impacts contextualized in a framework which meets a burden. Unique means occurring in a world which meets only one side's burden, not inspired or original
 * 2) They make arguments which have a rhetorical structure including tags, links to opposing arguments, claims, warrants, and impacts.
 * 3) They articulate burdens which make for interesting, educational debate--burdens should not be treated as random, complex independent voting issues to trip up novices. They always try to clarify rather than obfuscate burdens.
 * 4) They clash with their opponents' arguments whenever possible, **both** on the individual level and by global weighing.
 * 5) They understand the topic area and how it fits into the world.
 * 6) They are civil and speak clearly.

You may win in front of me without doing these things, but it will be difficult and your speaker points will be awful (and by awful I do not mean 27.5). If you do all of these, expect a 28.5 even if you get beaten badly.

What I Don't Care About

 * How fast you speak, as long as you are clear
 * Whether you make traditional or non-traditional arguments (though see above, I despise obfuscation)
 * How your arguments are structured (order and names) as long as the structure is clearly articulated
 * Whether you are the alpha-personality in cross-examination

LD-Specific

 * LD theory is immature, so be especially clear with what your violations mean (just what is conditionality in this context?).
 * For the love of everything, extend offense and weigh it.
 * Clarify burdens and clash on the line-by-line; don't obfuscate with impenetrable burdens and lots of overviews.

Policy-Specific

 * If you don't present a plan, you'd better have a very good reason why.
 * If you present a kritik, make your advocacy clear.
 * Expect me to be skeptical of multiple conditional counterplans.
 * Expect me to be skeptical of a half-dozen very short theory shells.
 * Keep your overviews short.
 * I won't read a lot of cards after the round, and I will never call for a card if you did not clearly read the citation.