Hollar,+Robert

Background: debated policy last two years in high school, LD first two years. i debated for a small school and we didn't run a lot of off's, especially T or Theory. in college i debated a year for western Kentucky university where i became comfortable with those positions and was successful in NFA-LD; which is basically policy debate but one on one instead of two on two.

speed: i'm a slow flower but i'll hear what you're saying at moderate to high speed. probably shouldn't spread. speed is a negotiated contract between the two debaters meaning one debater may yell "clear" to the other, but may not speak faster than that in their speech.

what i'll vote on: i'll evaluate the round by whatever paradigm you guys tell me too as long as you give me a good reason why that's best. i'll vote on almost any argument if you're winning on the flow but i'd prefer not to vote on theory. the exception is K'S. i don't like them. i'll vote on a K only if i have no other choice. you must be winning the K a hundred percent AND I HAVE TO BE PERSUADED BY IT i must believe that you think the K is true and you are not running it as a chess piece. i feel this way (the argument needing to be true and not just strategic) for most theory arguments as well. i'm fine with critical aff's, in fact i think they're kinda cool and fun to hear.

questions during prep is fine as long as it's fine with the other debater