Miller,+Zane

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and am now doing policy at UNLV. __Strategic Things __ I went for basically anything when I was in high school, so do whatever you like. Primarily read tricks (polls), K affs and kritiks my senior year. __Arguments __ DAs/Case: Yay. Go for it, they're fun and easy. Link stories and specific links are great, but not required. Counterplans: I give more leeway for counterplans than most people. I like fun counterplans. Neg Kritiks: Favorite argument in high school. Most of my experience was in Marxism, neoliberalism, anarchism, fem IR and biopolitical stuff, but don't be afraid to read other arguments, as long as you can give the 15-second Wikipedia version confidently. If you can't, I would advise against the position for strategic reasons more than anything else. Aff Kritiks: Like these too. Be very careful about execution, internal link stories tend to be a problem with these. I hold non-topical versions of K Affs to a very high standard. Framework-y Positions: Go for it. I read tricks in high school and thought they were interesting, so I'm more receptive to those styles than the majority of judges. Straight-up framework is fine too. Please take the time to slow down on shotgun analytics. Theory: Probably my least favorite position, though I'm perfectly fine with evaluating it. Please slow down or do a ridiculously good job crystalizing. I'm fine voting on __justified__, __warranted__ RVIs. __Speaks __ I like sass, humor and confidence. I also like civility and politeness. Try to favor the latter if you can't decide which to go with. I give speaks based mostly off of presentation: technical skill, control of CX, ability to execute a strategy confidently. Subjective considerations like the above happen after that. Things that will tank your speaks: being an asshole, advocating any bigoted position (this means being __blatantly__ heteronormative, sexist, racist, etc.), being so unclear I have to back-flow most of the debate. Nothing else will result in less than a 26.5 (or a 27 if the tournament doesn't like fractions). __Defaults __ The thing about defaults is I only use them when __literally nothing__ on the topic has been said in the round. As long as there is some undead resemblance of a warrant for the argument, I'll go either way on it. Competing interps before reasonability. Condo before uncondo. Truth-testing before comparative worlds/offense-defense/policymaking. Magnitude before anything else. Util before anything else (please don't make me use this one). Presume aff (though without an explicit trigger I don't think there's a scenario in which I would do so). No RVI. Theory and epistemological/ontological Ks are on the same level, then practical Ks/framework, then substance. Terminal defense/0% risk is a thing. __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Framework Debate __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Please number/letter/symbolize/sub-point/somehow designate the different sections of your framework. It's a pet peeve of mine that people just have a mess of philosophy without any way to organize it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Consequentialism: I'm a policy debater now, so I suppose technically I should be "predisposed" or something towards consequentialism. Probably not the case. I like these debates though, so if ya'll want to have a throw-down with 3 DAs, 2 counterplans, and case, I'll love it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Deontology: <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Technical Framework: I am perfectly happy with evaluating triggers, NIBs, skepticism, presumption, conditional statements, linguistic justifications, a priori arguments, etc. I like tricks. I think they sponsor critical thinking, force a close reading of positions, allow the affirmative to balance out time disparities, and are legitimately interesting and under-discussed arguments. All of that said you can still definitely lose those theory debates, so don't assume my interest means you get to undercover it. __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">"Util" Debate __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">DAs in LD are under-loved. A strong DA is often better than reading an NC, don't be afraid to go all on them. That said, you better be damn sure, otherwise you're not going to be in a fun place. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Counterplan debate in LD is odd because you're more often going to get into a theory debate than a counterplan debate. Ergo, read cheatier counterplans. You're going to have to put up with it anyway. Might as well get the offense out of it they say you're already trying to get. __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Deontological Debate __
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">LD: __**
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Pre-round Rush Version **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Long Version **

__<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Kritik Debate __

__<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Technical Debate __

__<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Theory Debate __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">This probably doesn't deserve its own section, from a philosophical standpoint, but practically it needs one. I'll borrow my standpoint on this from Christian Tarsney "It self-evidently should not be the case that 70 percent of high-level debate rounds are decided by debates about the rules of debate." That said, I disagree about the reason that that is the case; I believe that debate is ultimately a game of who cheats better, so I think that it is the case not because it's silly, but because people should be better at leveraging their own cheating. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">It's probably good to describe what I mean by cheating here; 'cheating' in this context means changing the rules or standards of the round in such a way that you come out ahead. This includes but is not limited to twisting impact calculus, 'spinning' evidence, taking strategic time trade-offs, etc. I think you are playing a game, and a game to which you get to write the rules, and as such you should try to push them in a direction that is advantageous to you.

__<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Strategic Things __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">I went for basically anything when I was in high school, so do whatever you like. Primarily read tricks (polls), K affs and kritiks my senior year. __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Arguments __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">DAs/Case: Yay. Go for it, they're fun and easy. Link stories and specific links are great, but not required. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Counterplans: I give more leeway for counterplans than most people. I like fun counterplans. I'm also perfectly content with generic counterplans; though I'm sure by halfway through a tournament I'll be less excited about it. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Neg Kritiks: Favorite argument in high school. Most of my experience was in Marxism, neoliberalism, anarchism, fem IR and biopolitical stuff (Foucault, Agamben), but don't be afraid to read other arguments, as long as you can give the 15-second Wikipedia version confidently. If you can't, I would advise against the position for strategic reasons more than anything else. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Aff Kritiks: Like these too. Be very careful about execution, internal link stories tend to be a problem with these. I hold non-topical versions of K Affs to a very high standard. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Theory/T: Go for it. I err neg on condo, aff on topicality. I think people don't go for these positions enough, but most people are not fabulous at going for it, so if you think you fall into that camp, don't go for it. __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Speaks __ <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">I like sass, humor and confidence. I also like civility and politeness. Try to favor the latter if you can't decide which to go with. I give speaks based mostly off of presentation: technical skill, control of CX, ability to execute a strategy confidently. Subjective considerations like the above happen after that. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Things that will tank your speaks: being an asshole, advocating any bigotted position (this means being __blatantly__ heteronormative, sexist, racist, etc.), being so unclear I have to back-flow most of the debate. Nothing else will result in less than a 26.5 (or a 27 if the tournament doesn't like fractions).
 * __<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Policy: __**
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Pre-round Rush Version **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Long Version **