Lucas Miller Paradigm

Last changed 5/11 10:43A EDT

Personal Debate History- I am in my late years of collegiate debate i have spent a year at Liberty University debating, 2 years at GMU, and all 4 years of high school in debate. I have participated in speech events, LD, PF, Congress, and Policy. I am a kritikal debater normally going 1 off in my negative strategies in college. The literature areas i have experience in are capitalism, Neolib, Biopower, Securitization, semiotics, psychoanalysis, and others. I am a 2n.

Quick notes-

- You should assume that I am not up on the literature you have read. You should not expect me to know every acronym or all the latest developments in your DA scenario, nor should you assume that I understand all of the jargon in your K. Err on the side of ,at least, briefly explaining a concept before jumping into the intricacies of your argument.

- Defense can win debates and I have no problem pulling the trigger on presumption. I can be compelled that there is 0% risk of solvency to an affirmative case, or that there is no internal link within a DA. "There's a 1% chance that we're good for the world" is not a sufficient justification unless you provide a reason for why the opposing team's defensive argument is false or simply mitigates your claim (rather than taking it out terminally).

- I have a tendency to be somewhat expressive. If I find something stupid happening within a debate, I will likely face-palm, and/or shake my head; if I didn't understand you, I will give you a quizzical look. You should look up occasionally and take hints from the visual cues that I am sending. I won't make verbal interjections within a debate unless you're being unclear in which case i will say clear twice

- There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude. Don't cross it. If you don't know the difference, just watch for how I react

Some specific concerns:

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison.

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: a good t spec debate , topic specific DA(s), the one off strategy whether it be framework or the k, and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

Other notes - please for gods sake slow down on your analytics on theory and t flows. The reason behind this is two fold.

1. I don't ever run these arguments so I'm not as likely to be able to fill in gaps if i miss something.

2. rushing through these issues makes it seem like this is a time trade off and not an investment to win, thus i will be thoroughly less persuaded by the arg and hold a much higher threshold if you do in fact get to go for it.

I WILL NOT VOTE ON REJECTIONS OF SCHOOLS OR SPECIFIC DEBATERS

the above does not mean i wont vote a team down for bad rhetoric, offensive acts or speech, or making the space physically unsafe. What this means is that this must become a problem in the round i am judging, must be made a disadvantage or reason to reject a team in that round, and be well impacted on why this is bad for the community as a whole to follow the precedent of the actions i would be rejecting. I will not and i repeat i will not just vote for args like Dan is bad for debate he does x y or z outside of round, or vote against Dan he goes to x school which is bad for debate.

Judges who i aspire to juddge like / places to look if im missing something - Rakeem Robinson, Lindsey Shook, Ben Hagwood, and Brad Boman

I do wish to be on all email chains - my email is lucasmiller74@gmail.com

speaker point scale

29-30 - Not college - your'e doing things at a collegiate level - collegiate level - youre teaching me about debate

28.5 - 29 you're above what i expected out of a round based on your peers at a given tournament

28-28.5 your'e performing on average as well as your peers at your tournament

27.5 - 28 - you've made a mistake which makes you seem like a weaker debater than where your skills are / you were rude and or disrespectful

27-27.5 - you need to improve your debate skills to be able to compete at your current division at this tournament

sub 27 - you were inappropriate

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX Quarte Lincoln WM SA Midtown West AH Neg Neg on a 3-0
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R5 SA Harlem North Central PT SA Harlem West TF Aff
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R3 SA Midtown West AH SA Ditmas Park AD Aff
Middle School TOC hosted by UK 5/13/2018 CX R1 SA Harlem West LS SA Harlem East MQ Aff
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 JVPF JV 6 Sidwell Friends CS Freedom HB Neg
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 APF 5 Arl West Potomac AR Thomas Jefferson PL Aff Aff on a 2-0
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 WPF 4 Wash Sidwell Friends FH School w/o Walls RT Neg Neg on a 2-0
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 JVPF JV 3 Good Counsel TK Sidwell Friends PK Neg
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 WPF 2 Wash Sidwell Friends BB Rich Montgomery WY Aff Aff on a 2-0
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 WPF 2 Wash Sidwell Friends AA Walt Whitman FH Neg Neg on a 2-0
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 APF 1 Arl Rock Ridge HR Hayfield PY Aff
WACFL Public Forum Metrofinals 3/17/2017 APF 1 Arl Thomas Jefferson BM Hayfield AK Aff Aff on a 2-0