Muellerleile,+Nick

The last name is pronounced 'Miller-lie-lee'. I debated LD for four years (03-07) at Highland Park (MN), currently their head coach. Graduated 2011 majoring in Communication with an emphasis in argument theory. Currently Tumblr's favorite LD judge.

I'll start with the most important important point first: with me, speed is not your friend. I'm hard of hearing: my right ear is basically for decoration and to ensure my glasses don't fall down. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow what you say, and I cannot vote for you if the flow isn't giving me a reason to. If I'm lost, I'll give clear visual cues. I understand that if I'm in a three judge panel, that you only need to count to two, but I appreciate it when my hearing difficulties are accommodated to.

Beyond the pragmatic reasons for not going fast is a personal preference. I'd rather see fewer interesting and well-reasoned arguments than eighty seven blippy ones dotted across the flow because it comes across as intellectually dishonest to bury an opponent in meaningless argumentation. Having more arguments != having better arguments. At the end of the round, you should only be giving me a few voting issues, and I'd rather vote for a side where these voters were arguments that dominated the flow or which defined the clash in the round rather than the fifteenth point your opponent missed in the 1AR, but which is “the really important one”.

A good thing to do in front of me in the 2NR/2AR is to take a step back and weigh the arguments. Make voting issues. Paint me a picture about how the round looks, and why you're winning it. If you want to link it back to the standard, that would be appreciated but isn't strictly necessary. This is the part of the round where spin and skillful characterization are your friends.

My favorite thing about judging debate is being exposed to different approaches to the topic. I am open to voting for Ks, counterplans and other non-traditional advocacies. However, there is a difference between a critical position that points out a problematic assumption on the part of the framers of the resolution or your opponent, and "I'm going to run this because they won't know how to respond to it". Do the former, not the latter.

I award speaker points based on your skill in arguing, but also on your presence in the round. If you have your opponent's case prepped out six ways from Sunday that's great, but give me some reason to vote for //you// and your skill in arguing. I want to see that you're actually present in the round making some sort of intellectual leaps. This means eye contact.