Miller,+Will

Will Miller

Kent Denver 2010 Georgetown 2014

I debated four years for Kent Denver, but I’m not debating in college. I was not the fastest in high school, but I am pretty good on the flow. If for some reason I can’t keep up with you I will let you know. I like funny debates, but there is a fine line between being funny and being a douche. Especially if you are destroying a team, be nice or your speaker points will suffer. A disclaimer: these are my predispositions about debate, but nothing is set in stone for me. If you argue and win that I should evaluate the debate differently, then I will. As you can see, this is my first year judging high school debates. You shouldn't assume that I have much (if any) knowledge of the topic. I still remember very well what the debate looks like from your side of the room, though, so that should be in your favor. I (like most judges) am a big fan of case specific strategies. I will reward the negative for thinking of specific, well researched counterplans, disads, or kritiks. I also think the case debate is underused. A few good defensive arguments on the advantages (even analytics) can have a big mitigating effect on the aff. The same can be said for the 2ac – most politics disads can be attacked with smart link uniqueness/no impact args (for lack of better cards). I value good research, so if you point out why your authors are more qualified than theirs or why your cards are better, that will probably have more weight for me than it would for most judges. I also really like people who read the un-underlined parts of their opponents’ cards. If you point out that an author is being taken out of context or that he/she concludes differently five paragraphs later, that will carry a lot of weight with me too. Now a little on specific arguments: T: I will default to competing interpretations here. I am also predisposed to think that T is mostly about limits. Reading cards here is good. Also, being reasonably topical means that you have a reasonable counter-interpretation, not some arbitrary conception of reasonable relation to the topic. CP/DA: Conditionality is probably good. PICs are probably OK. Agent counterplans are probably OK. I was a 2n for most of high school, and almost all of my 2nrs were CP/DA or just a DA. I am the most comfortable judging these debates. Like I said, I like specific arguments, but I also went for the politics DA plenty. Politics is best run when you have a specific link to the Aff and good reasons why the impact interacts with the aff. I know most politics cards suck, but you should try to find warranted uniqueness/link cards. One of these is much more persuasive than reading five one-line uniqueness cards that all say the same thing in the 2nc. K: If Ks are your thing, then by all means go for the K. They were not mine. For that reason, I have been less exposed to the K than I have other arguments. I should be able to follow your arguments, but it will take a little more explanation on your part. I think a good K team should be able to articulate the impact of their criticism in the context of the affirmative as well as a role for my ballot. Ks that try to limit out any discussion of aff advantages will be facing an uphill battle. Critical affs are fine especially if they have a plan text. Theory: If you intend to go for this, slow down a little bit. I’m not a huge fan of theory debates but I understand its strategic importance. I will default to rejecting the argument not the team.