Judge+Philosophy

Jeffrey Miller
Fayette County HS (Fayetteville, GA)
 * Assistant Director of Debate

Background:** I debated for Fayette County for four years. I am entering my fourth year coaching Fayette Co. I've also coached Wheeler, Sandy Creek, and Calhoun (TOC only) over the past couple of years.

I average around over 100 topics on each topic I've judged - not including the countless hours I spend researching the topic. By the time the season rolls around, I will probably be semi to very familiar with the arguments. This year the aff is 14-25. You can read my full decisions & comments on my ballots on the front page.
 * Rounds on the Social Service Topic: 39**


 * I have given speaker points in 34 debates: the average number of points I have assigned is a 27.17.

Top 1A's This Year 29.0 - Lee Quinn (Mtn Brook) at Samford Rd 4 29.0 - Andrew Markoff (Bronx Science) at Blake Rd 6 28.5 - Bamm Bamm Ball (USN) at Samford Rd 1 28.0 - Alex Liloto (Lakeside) at ENDI Camp Tournament 28.0 - Ada Vargas (Whitney Young) at Blake Rd 2 28.0 - Cody Crunkilton (SPASH) at Blake Rd 4

Top 2A's This Year

29.0 - Cleo Johnson (SPASH) at Blake Rd 4 28.5 - Kevin Jiang (Mtn Brook) at Samford Rd 4 28.0 - 7 Tied

Top 1N's This Year

29.0 - Jeff Zhang (Chattahoochee) at Carrollton Rd 5 28.5 - Dylan Gorman (Bronx Science) at Blake Rd 1 28.5 - Jeff Zhang (Chattahoochee) at Johns Creek Rd 1 28.5 - Mark Trouville (Pine Crest) at Blake Rd 4 28.5 - Cameron Merrick (Littleton) at Blake Rd 3

Top 2N's This Year

29.0 - Toby Jacob (Littleton) at Blake Rd 3 28.5 - Matt Rosenthal (Chattahoochee) at Johns Creek Rd 1 28.5 - Tony Mead (Perry) at Ohio Valley Rd 1 28.5 - Cara Venezia (Chattahoochee) at Carrollton Rd 5 28.5 - Andrew Kim (GACS) at Carrollton Rd 3 28.5 - Cara Venezia (Chattahoochee) at Ohio Valley 2**


 * __SOCIAL SERVICES TOPIC SEMI-UPDATE (12-14-2009)__

After almost a full semester of the social services topic, I thought that the teams I judge deserve an update on how my decisions are usually going. I've noticed that I've been voting negative VERY OFTEN this year (over 65% of the time). This doesn't mean that it's impossible to win my ballot when you're affirmative it's just meant that the affirmatives I've judged this year are making awful decisions in round.

So tips for you if you're affirming the resolution in front of me:

On the topicality debate, my problem with most affirmatives are they are not reading enough offense on this flow. The main problem is with the interpretations debate, I'm not getting preferable enough counter interpretations from the affirmative. I feel that there are probably better arguments these teams could be making, but it seems that every T debate seems to just be one-sided towards the end because the affirmative literally has no offensive reason why their interpretation is better than the negatives.

On the counterplan debate, I've kinda been disappointed by how much ground the aff has been giving up to negative's this year. I feel that 3 in every 5 debates I judge, the aff lets the negative get away with some type of abusive counterplan. I am not a huge fan of theory especially when poorly debated, but I think that affirmatives should be adding this to their toolbox when they're debating in front of me. I'm also sick of the same generic solvency deficit arguments - I'd really like them to be specific to the round and the CP. Take a minute if you're the affirmative team and exploit the counterplan text. I'm seeing more and more lazy neg debaters writing bad CP texts and getting away with it. In the 2AR, I want some type of solvency and impact analysis. I feel like the affs I've judged haven't provided me with those. I want a reason why you solving your bioterror advantage and the CP not is a reason for me to vote affirmative.

On the disad debate, I think that the aff needs to be working more so on the link / internal link debate - I think that negatives are getting away with a bunch of shady link stories that probably aren't true. I think that this topic sucks, but affirmatives should have ways out of shady disad stories. Additionally, I think affirmatives are not reading enough add ons. I think add ons are probably one of the most efficient ways to equalize the ground on this topic. Use your add ons to your advantage -read them. I feel like I've only judged a couple teams this year that have read add ons in the debate.

Now tips for the negative-

I really like solvency advocates for CP's and think they are necessary. I think that you probably theoretically need to read a solvency advocate in the 1NC. I think this is debatable especially when reading advantage CP's - but if you're reading States CP - I think you need a card in the 1NC. **

I believe debate should be a game of competing policy options. The key word should be - not has to be. I reiterate this point because I do not mind you reading a K in front of me, I'd just prefer a CP / DA debate. I feel that if the K debate is one you are best with - go for it. When reading the K in front of me, you'll probably want to do more analysis than you do in front of some & more case-specific analysis. This means I don't want to hear you 4 minute overview when you read a pointless 2 minute Zizek card. I want to hear how the K solves or turns the case.
 * 
 * __Philosophy__ **

Since I did say I'd prefer a CP or DA debate - let me clarify - this does not necessarily mean a generic disad or a States CP. If there is any CP I dislike more [for multiple reasons] it is the States CP. My ideal counterplan debate is one that solves the aff and is specific to the round. I'm a fan of Word PICs, PICs in general, and another sneaky types of CP's. Consult CP's are fine - I don't think they are as illegit as some say - I think they you need to read a solvency advocate though. When reading theory on the counterplan flow, I'd prefer you tell me in the roadmap so I can get a new sheet for it - and go a little bit slower than usual - I want the warrants to these args, not just "destroys ground".

My general thoughts about cp theory:

Conditionality - Good PICs - Good Word PICs - Good Consult - Good & Bad Condition - Leaning towards aff Delay - Bad States - Bad

Topicality is an issue that should be in more debates. I think that Topicality debates when done correctly can provide fantastic clash and education unlike anything a Cp/K/Da can provide. I think the negative really needs to impact each part of the T flow in order to win my ballot.

Ask me questions before the round or email me before the tournament at jmill126@gmail.com ||