Hello, as you know my name is Seth, I use he/him/his as well as they/them/theirs pronouns, depending on whichever you're more comfortable with. I competed in speech and debate for 3 years at Eagle High School, starting in my sophomore year, and I competed for 3 more years at the College of Idaho for my undergrad. Here's how I feel in regards to judging a lot of the different types of debate, and other notes:

Policy

I did policy for my novice year of high school and went to the Gonzaga Debate Institute for 2 summers. I'm comfortable with just about anything you wanna throw at me in policy, but please make sure you understand what you're reading and are able to explain it to your opponents. Make sure your spreading isn't blending words together either, if you're stumbling over your words, slow down, it is totally OK. You're more than welcome to ask me questions before the round as well. Also, if I judge the round the wrong way and you feel the need to tell me, please do! We are always learning more and more when it comes to debate, and as a judge I'm always down with having some more knowledge.

LD

I did Lincoln Douglas for a majority of my high school debate career. You are more than welcome to run whatever you like. I also like to weigh the round on value and criterion. You need to tell me why I should prefer yours over your opponent's and why it's the primary lens for the round. Go as fast as you like, but be considerate of your opponent. I also require you give me voters in your rebuttals, because that draws the image for me in regards of whether I vote for the AFF or the NEG.

PF

I competed in PF here and there in high school, and helped prep some of school's PF teams. I want to ultimately be convinced. I'm as fresh as they come to the PF scene so the more explanation you do for me, the better. If you accidently do some slightly progressive things in PF, I won't get as mad at you as some of the more traditional PF judges will, but that doesn't mean you should run a CP in the round because you know you shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points based on a few things: 1) Did you communicate your points well? 2) Were you actively engaged throughout the entire debate? 3) Did you compose yourself in a respectful manner to your opponent and your judge?. If you can follow these 3 things, you be guaranteed good speaks, however, it won't solidify the 30 for you. That is earned by truly delivering an outstanding speech in round.

Overall Note:

If any competitors read arguments, say, or do anything that support racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and any other form of systematic oppression or hate, I will not tolerate it and I will end the round and report the person committing those said actions to tabs.

If you have any questions about a round I judge y'all in, and if I'm judging you in policy send me the doc at: sgarw0138@gmail.com

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.