Mills,+Joshua

Hi my name is Josh, I debated LD 4 years in highschool, and I debate parli in college for the University of Nevada. As far as speed goes I can keep up no problem, but you have to be clear. If you are mumbling into your laptop and tapping your foot so I can't hear you then I will probably not catch much of what you say and I will drop your speaks like they are hot. I don't flow author names so when you say extend paul newman in 2013 or whatever I have little to no idea what you are talking about. I don't like it when speed is used to exclude other competitors or members of the debate community. I believe that debate should be an inclusive event rather than exclusive so if your opponent can not keep up with speed don't try to "spread them out". I love T-debate, I think it works as a legitimate strategy I will vote on T, and I will vote on RVIs too, so if you are just running T as a time skew it might not necessarily be the best idea for you. I try to be tabula rasa[blank slate] to the best of my abilities. I like clear voting issues given at the end the debate will some solid impact analysis. I tend to vote for larger impacts if the debaters don't make a big deal of how they are winning an impact analysis through the value debate. So if you show me how you achieve your value you win (assuming you've won that your value is the best value in the round), but if you ignore the value debate, which tends to happen most the time I default to a net benefit evaluation of the round because that minimizes judge intervention. i hope that makes sense