Lou,+Kevin

Kevin Lou I’ve debated for 3 years at Westminster.

Regardless of my personal biases, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly, as long as you are clear, and that you impact and explain your arguments. In other words, although I may hate the consult counterplan, if you are aff and you mess up answering the consult counterplan you are still going to lose.

Argument Preferences: I enjoy judging disads, specific counterplans and case debates the most. While I favor policy debate to general K debates (Security, Cap, etc), I can still be persuaded if you go for the K. Be sure to explain to me what the alternative is and why you should win.  **With that being said, ****__ I am not a good judge for project teams, __** or teams that go for "debate bad/racist" type arguments. I am not persuaded by songs, poems, personal narratives, or believe any specific debate round is key to solving all racism in society or in the debate community. In these circumstances, and when framework becomes important, I lean heavily towards non-project teams.

Conditionality—0, 1 or 2 is ok. Anything more and you might be pushing it. Counterplans that allow the possibility of doing the entirety of the affirmative (i.e. Consult, Condition, process) are probably illegitimate and a good 2ar on theory can probably get me to reject these.

Conceded Arguments: They are true, if they are explained once, for instance a dropped plank to a counter plan in the 2nc, the 2nr doesn't need to repeat every word said.