Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

Ian Miller

Ian Miller
General Information
Name: Ian Miller
Affiliation: University of Oklahoma
Join Time: May 15, 2020 at 12:50PM EST
Send Message: You must Create an Account and Log-In to message users.
Debating Statistics
Wins: 0 (0 are Byes)
Losses: 0 (0 are Forfeits)
Average Points (Out of 30): 0 (0 total)
*Opponent Wins: 0
*Opponent Points: 0
Judging Statistics
Total Rounds Judged: 26
Average Points Given (Out of 30): 21.8
Voted Proposition In: 61.54% of rounds
Voted Opposition In: 38.46% of rounds
Average Length of Notes (Characters): 1313.2 (34142 total)
Matches
Current: None
Past:

Bearcat Open (Grades K-12)

Show

Bearcat Classic (Grades 6-12)

Show

*Does not count opponents in bye or forfeit rounds.

Other
About Me: I debate for the University of Oklahoma and came from Grapevine High School.
Judge Philosophy: General Information:

Tech over truth

I try to judge with little argumentative bias. I am a fairly flexible and read all types of arguments. I'd prefer that you do what you are good at instead of trying to adapt too much.

Evidence needs to be highlighted enough to form a cohesive argument. If someone points out that an opponent just read 12 words in a card I will have a much lower threshold for a refutation of it. Evidence written by debaters for debaters is given much less weight.

explain acronyms - i spend much more time dominating the intramural volleyball scene at ou than i spend thinking about the high school topic

Playing music is cool but if your opponent isn't cool with it or if the people debating next door can hear it please turn it off.

Respect matters - if you are debating people who may be a lot worse than you are make an effort to be nice.

Specifics:

T:

I'm good with this - limits and ground aren't impacts - only internal links to education, fairness, research, ect.

RVIs are bad

Caselists are good.

T is a question of what the topic should look like which means that in round abuse matters much less than potential abuse and is also a reason why T arguably comes before theory. I think "setting a precedent" specifically is not a good argument nor is it an impact

plan flaws and other procedurals are fun but aren't a super reliable 2nr option

DA:

They're good. Specific DAs are better and I will reward good research. Turns case should be contextualized as specifically as possible.

Including risk analysis framing when going for a DA is super helpful in rebuttals. 1% risk of extinction is kinda silly risk analysis but you'll have to explain why in the debate.

Read a complete shell in the 1nc - that means include uniqueness.

CP:

They're good. Smart advantage CPs and PICs are my favorite. Process/consult/delay CPs I like much less - unless it has a specific enough solvency advocate. I will vote for anything though - just make sure to explain why it solves the aff and is theoretically legitimate. Solvency advocates help a lot in making something theoretically legitimate.

K:

Framework is pretty important

I have a somewhat high threshold for link explanation - please make it about the aff and make it substantive part of the 2nr. Super generic Ks about the "state" or "fiat" aren't very persuasive to me.

Specific links are especially important when facing a soft-left aff that is in the direction of the alternative

i've found that a part of the k that really matters is its theory of power/how the world works. if the aff wins that those assumptions don't make sense then they will probably win. same for the negative, winning that the world works in a particular way makes me more likely to vote for you

If you are going to include a performance explain why it matters

if you advocate for suicide or death literally being good you'll probably catch an L

K Affs:

K affs are fine but please have a clear position you take on the resolution and a reason why the ballot is key. Shifting out of different negative positions makes me sympathetic to FW arguments.

A lot of judges think that TVAs are necessary every FW debate - I disagree. Having persuasive arguments that frame the ballot in relation to the impacts you are going for is sufficient.

I really value creative forms of engagement with K affs. Pull out those CPs and DAs. You should not be afraid to go for some variant of heg good, cap good, or liberalism good in front of me in conjunction with some case defense. If you have a strategy that contests a core thesis of the affirmative, go for it.

K affs will almost always get a permutation - if you think it is unfair why not just go for fw?

Case:

Internal link defense, even if not supported by evidence, is often more persuasive than the generic impact defense that every team reads.

I am a fan of impact turns.

Some affs get away with bad solvency arguments - don't let them do this.

Theory:

In order to make it a reason to reject the team explain why it impacts your ability to debate different flows. Otherwise it is probably just a reason to reject the argument. I don't really have a ton of biases here. Make sure you do things like answer their specific counter interp/standards instead of just reading the same generic block.

Speaker points:

My average is a 28.5. If you get below a 27 you did something offensive. If you get a 30 you are one of the best speakers I have ever seen.
Connect with Binghamton:
Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

PHP MySQL SUIT