Miller,+Lynn

Lynn A. Miller Derby High School Derby, Kansas Debate Experience: 4 Years High School 3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!) Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School lmiller@usd260.com Updated: September 20, 2017

As you can see, I have been around for a long time. However, I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T: Competing interpretations is my preferred framework. I tend to be more likely to vote when I have some clearly articulated impacts.

FW: I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

Impact FW: This is tough for me! I come from the land of policy debate with nuclear wars and extinction – I am very comfortable in this world. However, I am now faced with weighing other issues and trying to reconcile this within the debate. I feel that many teams are making a mess of this and leaving me to sort through a barrage of impact framing cards with little analysis or warrants. I typically lean util when left in this quandary.

CP: Probably a little stricter about competitiveness than many. However, not at all persuaded by blippy perms. CP must have a net benefit and there is no such thing as solves better.

K: I have read some literature, helped coach some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended. I am fine with no plan and actually think it is likely more competitive in most circumstances.

D As/Advs: I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency: Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.