Chris Miles Judging Philosophy


#1

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ: You do you. Also will inflate speaks for coffee.

Intro TLD- I did debate a lot
Hello,
My name is Chris Miles, I am a former debater for Missouri Western State University and an Alumni of KCKCC as well as an assistant coach Fort Osage High School. I debated Policy Debate all four years in High School and was exposed to both lay style debating and nat circuit style of debating. I have also been involved in the local community and have judged a very large amount of rounds especially on the MO and KS circuits as well as rounds at nationals. In high school I debated “traditional” policy affs until later in my high school career I became a more technical K debater. At KCKCC and Missouri Western I debated the K very heavily as well as method/performance style arguments. I would like to think that I have a decent understanding in all base forms of argumentation, and do not prefer one over another. Look below to see how I evaluate specific arguments.

The K TLDR I did it a lot. if it’s your thing then do it, also i don’t care that much about fw in the LOC/ 1NC. Have overviews and do link packaging. Don’t waste your time with a whole bunch of Net-Bens to permutation arguments. I hate R.O.B comes first claims.

I prefer the K with large overviews. I will admit that I don’t know all areas of K literature, but have been around the park enough to understand almost anything you throw at me as long as you do a good job describing the basics (Treat me like I don’t know anything, and you will be better off.) I believe that the K will almost always need more than a link of omission or a state link in order to win in front of me, unless clerically explained. I think there needs to be a clear link story, alt story, and impact story. I have a higher threshold on perms when there is only one off case position, and I believe that it is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy unless explicitly told otherwise. In the world where the perm is made I will evaluate it on the risk of solvency vs the risk of the K impacts. I am not a huge fan of rejection alternatives, and would prefer higher level of argumentation than reject the aff (but do it if it makes sense). I also think that link packaging makes the debate cleaner especially later in the debate. If you choose to not read an alternative that is ok, but it may take more work on your part to explain to me how the K solves the impacts to the K and/or the aff.

Theory, TLDR don’t read it if not necessary, condo is generally good if alternative option and squo

I have a pretty high threshold on theory and will very rarely will I reject the team, unless there are multiple off case positions kicked in the 2NR or some other wacky amount of abuse. All levels of theory need to be impacted out. That said I believe that you can use the theory flow to get offense on other parts of the flow. I prefer to flow this on a separate sheet so tell me in the road map. I also believe that the negative should avoid making contradictory arguments (Performative-Contradictions are probably bad) and can be used as offense. Slow down a little bit for theory at least for the interpretation and violation, if you want me to vote on it then it is in both of our interest that I have a clean flow.

Framework TLDR- it’s a strat. Read counter interps. Interps can be functionally competitive.

I have been on both sides of the framework flow, and I think that both sides need to be making offensive arguments on the framework flow. I believe that framework should try to include the most debaters as possible and should not be exclusionary, I am naturally going to prefer those arguments over just basic fairness and education debates. The problem I see most often on the framework flow is that no one is making strong impact analysis. I do have a higher threshold than many “traditional” policy judges on this question, and tend to err a little to the left of center. That being said you do you, and I’ll do my best to keep up.

Topicality, (see above)
I have a moderate threshold on T and would prefer not to vote on it if possible, I will willingly evaluate it in a round where the aff probably just isn’t topical. In cases like that I handle it similarly to theory arguments so look above. I will buy topicality isn’t a voter if clearly warranted why the discussion of the 1AC is more important. I have surprisingly voted for both effects T and extra T this year more than I have voted on regular Topicality. If you read a plan I have an implicit bias that it should be topical

DA/ CP- Read them? Good advantage cp’s are nice.

I group these two areas because I believe that all cp’s should have a net benefit. I am not a fan of consult cp’s and think that they steal a large amount of ground. If that is the argument you are going to make you will need to win a high chance of the net benefit. I refuse to vote for cp’s that do not have a form of net benefit. I handle perms on the CP the same way I evaluate them on the K. I will vote on da’s including politics I like good politics debates, as long as the internal links are solid.

Offense vs. Defense,- read both

I’m pretty pessimistic. I will vote on terminal defense. I may have a higher chance of voting on terminal defense than some other judges. That being said I think you should always be extending offense before defense. In debates between systemic impacts and magnitude impacts, impact framework is very important.

Aff’s- have one

Don’t have much to say. You do you tell me why to vote aff, if you’re not topical tell me why that is ok, etc. I am not a massive fan of try or die arguments, so saying it 200 times in the 2AR pmr isn’t going to get you very far with me, say it once that’s fine (if you say it more than that then you are probably missing larger issues). I have also noticed a trend of 1AC’s not having very good internal’s in the advantages and this trend frustrates me. I also see a lot of non-inherent aff’s if it becomes an issue I will vote on it. Again you do you.

Performance/method- I did them

I am all for this kind of argumentation as long as you are telling me why you are doing it and why your method is something that I should to vote for. I also prefer some form of thesis statement as a center for advocacy. give me tangible reasons to why your performance or method is an endorsement of a methodology that I should endorse with the ballot.

I will try to give non verbals when I can because I think they are important for you to understand how to communicate, and will say clear twice before I stop flowing.


#2

My other one was too long so I made it too short instead

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ: You do you. I like chai and coffee. If you have questions then ask me.

I am a former debater for FOHS, KCKCC, and Missouri Western State University. I have been involved in HS policy, NPDA/NPTE, and CEDA/NDT for 10 years. I debated many styles. People never read these, but here is a tldr.

The K if it’s your thing then do it. I don’t care that much about FW in the LOC/1NC. Have overviews and link package. I hate R.O.B comes first claims. Explain things to me.

Theory Slow down for the interp. Proven abuse is better. Simple interps are good. Multiple violations bad. If reading multiple theory positions put them on different sheets. read standards and voters.

Topicality (see above) I prefer pseudo topical to not topical.

DA/ CP Read them. Good advantage cp’s are nice.

Perms are test of competition. I think external net-benefits to permutations are the worst, don’t do them. read 1 and explain it. I treat them like text, so I prefer you slow down and read them twice.

Offense vs. Defense Read both. Will vote on terminal defense.

Aff’s have one. don’t say try or die 200 times. read internal link arguments. Be inherent. Be consistent.

Method/Performance I like knowing what the method is to a performance argument is and think that both are equally important and should be defended. I think that these arguments in general should have a method that is helpful for more than just the reader.