Miller,+Caitlin

Former LD debater, UDL coach of many years. Currently running the program at Jones College Prep in Chicago. Please don't use this as an end-all, be-all paradigm. I vote for which team won the flow. Do this by telling me what to vote on and why. I like any debate that is well-organized, well-played, and where I learn something from you. I enjoy strategy, warrants, explanations, clarity, a good overview or two, nicely parsed out procedurals on T/FW/theory, line-by-line, and clash with evidence. I can handle speed, but there's no sub for clarity. If you see me not flowing, that is a problem. I've been known to stop flowing if I have to figure out, with great difficulty, where I should be. I find myself increasingly on the email chain lately--can't quite explain why, maybe it's mostly interest--but don't feel like you're doing anything wrong if I ask. I am a fairly laid-back judge in round. I don't keep a running clock, but just don't abuse it. Conduct: Racist, sexist, homophobic, misgendered, transphobic, ableist evidence, arguments, or language will result in an automatic loss and little to no speaks from me. Cards about rape/sexual violence should definitely not be read if I am your judge. Ridiculous abuse arguments that reek of butthurtrather than actually legitimate arguments about the debate space or education. I'm an educator and a former debater. I take those roles seriously. I believe strongly that debate is a space for everyone. I don't take kindly to condescension, humiliation, or general rudeness because you've been lucky enough to have collectively more rounds, expensive camps, or experienced coaches. Humility gets you everywhere. Don't be a jerk. General Stuffs: Affs: I like everything. Performance/Kritikal/ Policy. I'd say, since I have an LD background, that I definitely lean towards the k side in terms of my preferences and I would consider myself to be an ethical decision maker, but that doesn't mean I don't wear a policy hat from time to time. I think both sides of the round need to clash with case as much as possible. I judge too many rounds where case gets lost, and it makes me sad. CX: Either my most favorite part of the debate or my most dreaded. I love playfulness, sarcasm, and humor, but not to the point of humiliation. I tend to vote teams down on speaks if, in knowing that your opponent has less experienced than you, you are still a jerk. I give high speaks to teams who critically utilize their CX to advance a strategy. I like being able to anticipate where you're going in the round with the line of questioning you're putting forth. Topicality: I tend to default to reasonability or CI. Not someone who tends to vote on T, but I have. However, I appreciate it as a procedural argument. I prefer T to be super clean and slllllooooooowww down. "We run a camp/core aff" is a pretty terminal aff defense in front of me. I will vote on dropped T as long as the impacts for this are reasonably explained. Kritiks: Love Ks. Well, most. Not a huge fan of death and Baudrillard but I have voted for them in the past. I want to see that the teams running Ks in front of me can substantially explain the K lit to me in their own words. Aff must use FW/T to answer the K and hopefully do it well. Have a mechanism to your alt. Don't be vague or lazy. What does the alt DO? Links: tell a consistent story with your K and that is done through link analysis. I hate when teams just try to dazzle with a fancy K and then not spend the time on the overarching story. Explain perms. Parse it out. Substantiate it. Framework: I love good FW debate IF it’s done well. If it’s the same tired stasis point arg, you might see me yawning in the back. DAs/CPs: Fine, fine. Need strong impacts on DAs, and link link link. Prep good frontlines on aff. Love a good tix DA. Elections, I think, still underrated. Recencymandatory. Tend to vote a lot on timeframe with DAs. PICs are fine as long as you substantiate the differences w/aff. Tend not to prefer most agent CPs unless the NBs are super duper worth it. I tend to view CPs as mainly just a test of competition. Just like with Ks, make the perm debate thorough. Rebuttals: I always find myself nitpicking the time allocation of rebuttals. Work with your partner to effectively split block and structure rebuttals. Really hate laundry list impact calc. Hone in on your 1-2 strongest points. Process the debate. Argue and extend warrants, not tags. Overviews, big picture, tell the story.