Wilhite,Taylor

I am open to pretty much any type of debate, I like to let the debaters choose what happens in round and what they want that round to look like. I am fine with one off K's or straight stock issues, whatever you think would be strategic, just do it well. I generally will vote on offense defense so far as who won the arguments, and then weigh the voting issues that I am presented by the debaters in their rebuttals based on who won what. That being said, here are some specifics.

T- I won't say it is a requirement that you run a counter definition, but I will say it is probably in your best interest as an affirmative if you want to win. If you are going to spend lots of time on these debates (or even if you aren't, for that matter) I want to see clash between your standards, not just both sides restating their same constructives over and over again. I will vote on T if you want me too, if not then I won't. If you want it to be an RVI, you better do lots of work convincing me.

K- I like them, they are good. I know enough to be pretty fluent in most, I'm reading the literature, but if you have any super deep critiques that are going off the walls, try to slow down some and make sure that I am understanding everything, if I don't get your kritik and how it functions, you probably are not going to win.

CP- go for it, anything not deemed "abusive" by the majority of the debate community is fine by me. I just ask that you don't go crazy with stupid counterplans and then expect sympathy from me when it doesn't work out the way you hoped.

Theory- I like to see clash, will vote on it if it comes down to it. I would like not for it to come to that, but hey, it's your round.

If you have any other specific questions you can just ask me, I have no dirty secrets to hide. Just have fun and try to learn something.