Millman,+Joseph

I debated for four years for the Carpe Diem team in New Jersey, I debated nationally and qualified twice to the TOC. I now attend Swarthmore College.

**Paradigm:** I will try to objectively evaluate all arguments and defer to the issues as decided in the debate. I will not vote on unwarranted arguments, and responses (even conceded ones) must make sense for me to consider them--I do not care that four of your one-sentence blip answers were conceded if I do not understand how they respond to the position you are answering. I do not evaluate arguments "by the flow" in a strict sense. If the way an argument is explained logically connects it with another argument, I will evaluate that connection even if it has not been explained in terms of the flow. You can maximize efficiency by comparing multiple arguments on one part of the flow, rather than cross-applying those arguments on the line-by-line.

The rest of my paradigm lays out preferences to which I will default absent in-round argumentation on the issues.

By default, I decide rounds based on the arguments articulated by both debaters and I have no objection to either stock or non-stock argumentation. I have no preset attachment to evaluating arguments through any particular framework (e.g. via a value/criterion), so I will weigh arguments based upon the framework and order articulated by debaters in the round. Additionally, I have no problem with speed.


 * Speaks: ** 28.5 and above means you deserve to clear.