Miles,+Christopher

Hello,

TOO LONG DIDN'T READ: DO WHAT YOU WANT

My name is Christopher Miles, I am currently a debater for Missouri Western State University and an Alumni of KCKCC as well as an assistant coach Fort Osage High School. I debated Policy Debate all four years in High School and was exposed to both lay style debating and nat circuit style of debating. I have also been involved in the DKC community and have judged a very large amount of rounds especially on the MO and KS circuits as well as rounds at nationals. In high school I debated "traditional" policy affs until later in my high school career I became a more technical K debater. At KCKCC and Missouri Western I debate the K very heavily as well as method/performance style arguments. I would like to think that I have a decent understanding in all base forms of argumentation, and do not prefer one over another. Look below to see how I evaluate specific arguments.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND READ ALL TEXT TWICE (PLAN, ALT, PERM, ECT.) and/or GIVE ME A COPY

The K, I prefer the K with large overviews. I will admit that I don't know all areas of K literature, but the areas that I do have a strong understanding on are: Bataille, Spanos, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Marx, Said, Wilderson, and Set Col. I should be able to understand almost anything you throw at me as long as you do a good job describing the basics (Treat me like I don't know anything, and you will be better off.) I believe that the K will almost always need more than a link of omission or a state link in order to win in front of me, unless clerically explained. I think there needs to be a clear link story, alt story, and impact story. I am a fan of the floating PiK but if that is the goal I don't believe you should hide it in the debate, and will not vote on one unless there is a strong chance that the aff links to the Criticism. I have a higher threshold on perms when there is only one off case position, and I believe that it is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy. In the world where the perm is made I will evaluate it on the risk of solvency vs the risk of the K impacts. I am not a huge fan of rejection alternatives, and would prefer higher level of argumentation than reject the aff. I also think that link packaging makes the debate cleaner especially later in the debate. If you choose to not read an alternative that is ok, but it may take more work on your part to explain to me how the K solves the impacts to the K and/or the aff.

(I don't like it when debaters can't simplify the thesis of their K. I find the best debaters can explain their argument simply without getting too dense.)

Theory,

I have a pretty high threshold on theory and will very rarely will I reject the team, unless there are multiple off case positions kicked in the 2NR or some other wacky amount of abuse. All levels of theory need to be impacted out. That said I believe that you can use the theory flow to get offense on other parts of the flow. I prefer to flow this on a separate sheet so tell me in the road map. I also believe that the negative should avoid making contradictory arguments (Performative-Contradictions are probably bad) and can be used as offense. Slow down a little bit for theory at least for the interpretation and violation, if you want me to vote on it then it is in both of our interest that I have a clean flow.

Framework,

I have been on both sides of the framework flow, and I think that both sides need to be making offensive arguments on the framework flow. I believe that framework should try to include the most debaters as possible and should not be exclusionary, I am naturally going to prefer those arguments over just basic fairness and education debates. The problem I see most often on the framework flow is that no one is making strong impact analysis. I do have a higher threshold than many straight policy judges on this question, and tend to err a little to the left of center. I also do evaluate impact turns as offense that can be a potential win even if the 2NR doesn't go for it. That being said you do you, and I'll do my best to keep up.

Topicality, I have a moderate threshold on T and would prefer not to vote on it if possible, I will willingly evaluate it in a round where the aff probably just isn't topical. In cases like that I handle it similarly to theory arguments so look above. I think there needs to be proven abuse to vote on topicality. I will buy topicality isn't a voter if clearly warranted why the discussion of the 1AC is more important. I have surprisingly voted for both effects T and extra T this year more than I have voted on regular Topicality.

DA/ CP

I group these two areas because I believe that all cp's should have a net benefit. I am not a fan of consult cp's and think that they steal a large amount of ground. If that is the argument you are going to make you will need to win a high chance of the net benefit. I refuse to vote for cp's that do not have a form of net benefit. I handle perms on the CP the same way I evaluate them on the K. I will vote on da's including politics I like good politics debates, as long as the internal links are solid.

Offense vs. Defense,

I'm pretty pessimistic. I will vote on terminal defense. I may have a higher chance of voting on terminal defense than some other judges. That being said I think you should always be extending offense before defense. In debates between systemic impacts and magnitude impacts, impact framework is very important.

Aff's

Don't have much to say. You do you tell me why to vote aff, if you're not topical tell me why that is ok, etc. I am not a massive fan of try or die arguments, so saying it 200 times in the 2AR isn't going to get you very far with me, say it once that's fine (if you say it more than that then you are probably missing larger issues). I have also noticed a trend of 1AC's not having very good internal's in the advantages and this trend frustrates me. I also see a lot of non-inherent aff's if it becomes an issue I will vote on it. Again you do you.

Performance,

I am all for this kind of argumentation as long as you are telling me why you are doing it and why your method is something that I should to vote for. I also prefer some form of thesis statement as a center for advocacy. Don't just sing for "funzies" give me tangible reasons to why your performance is an endorsement of a methodology that I should endorse with the ballot.

Overall, do what you do and tell me why it is important and you are in a good position. If you want to have a massive MURKA heg throwdown debate I am game. I am also cool with talking about why van gogh cut off his ear and anything in between. I will try to give non verbals when I can because I think they are important for you to understand how to communicate, and will say clear twice before I stop flowing.