I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

I like well impacted arguments and thorough rebuttal! But mostly just be respectful and have a good time :)

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

~*~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.

I have a lot of experience in mainly speeches.

I currently teach Speech & Debate. I have done this for the past year along with coaching speech/debate.

Debates that I can not judge are policy and congress. I am very comfortable in judging PF.

Tabula Rasa - can follow and flow spread up to 475 WPM

I began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy.

Essentially, I am a hybrid communications/flow judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and both the rules AND SPIRIT of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case. Please note: LD is not Policy, PF is not Policy, and I am not a Policy judge. For my approach to speech events, please follow this link.

Speaker Points: I am developing a Speaker Points Rubric that will assess the following categories:

~Constructive Argumentation
~Refutation & Rebuttal
~Evidence & Logic
~Cross-Examination
~Delivery

Cross-X and Clash: I value civil and direct cross, as well as effective engagement with opposing arguments and framework. Direct clash with claims and evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer. I also find that people who prioritize speed and quantity of information over clarity lose my attention, since it's impossible to use effective vocal dynamics if your pace is too quick.

Resolution Analyses and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, or there’s something in the Resolution that truly merits one, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation. I repeat: LD is not Policy. PF is not Policy. I am not a Policy judge. Until I see a K or RA that changes my mind, I am of the opinion that K's are most often a cowardly way of avoiding engagement with the opposing side. Counterplans are fine!

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted. I keep careful flows, so don't tell me they dropped your case/points, unless that's clear from the flow.

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

I'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.

I’m a current varsity debater, I like well organized arguments, and please don’t spread. My experience is mainly in congressional debate.