Miller,+Joseph


 * Background:** Debated at Highland Park, MN in 9th, 10th, and 12th grade, graduating in 2007. I debated primarily on the national circuit in 2006-2007. I was the director of debate at Highland Park from 2012-2014.

Bruce Lee will now explain my paradigm (//with clarifying notes from me//):

"The six diseases:

1. The desire for victory. 2. The desire to resort to technical cunning. 3. The desire to display all that has been learned. 4. The desire to awe the enemy. 5. The desire to play the passive role. 6. The desire to get rid of whatever disease one is affected by."

The six diseases, as they apply to debate. //1. There are things more important than winning at debate. Don't be cruel or patronizing. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, agist, ableist, etc.// //2. Winning a cohesive advocacy position (which includes Ks and theory) > trying to win on blip extensions that don't fit into an overall decision-making framework.// //3. It is inefficient to use unnecessarily complex strategies and arguments to win. Efficiency is the mark of the better debater.// //4. (This one is pretty self-explanatory.)// //5. Proactive strategies that explicitly weigh against opponent offense are best. When debaters ignore each other's extensions and pretend that the opponent's offense doesn't exist, the debate gets messy.// //6. You're not perfect. No one is. Be funny. Debate is fun. Have fun.//

90% of your top speed is probably safe. Go 80% if you are particularly quiet or monotone when you read. I will say "clear" up to two times if necessary. After that I will just put down my pen and cross my arms. If you are running arguments about grammar (which words are modifying which words in the resolution, etc.) or very dense philosophical arguments then slow down some more

I assume "artificial sufficiency." This means that if someone runs theory or a K against you and you win terminal offense or defense on the K/theory then you win. It is unnecessary to also win the resolutional debate.
 * Theory/K stuff:**

Theory example: Neg runs an theory violation that says Aff must defend implementation. Aff demonstrates this interp is flawed OR turns the impacts/links. Aff wins even if they don't extend anything out of the AC. K example: Neg runs a K saying the Aff advocacy is racist. Aff demonstrates that they are not racist OR turns the links showing how the Neg is racist. Aff wins even if they don't extend anything out of the AC.

HUGE CAVEAT: If you try to abuse my sympathy for artificial sufficiency by running an abusive/disrespectful case in order to bait theory I will intervene against you.