Priem,Mike

Name = Mike Priem Affiliation = Mankato West 15+ years coaching School Strikes = Mankato West CX philosophy = I'm an old-school policymaker. The "question" to be answered in the round is whether the plan is a good idea. Typically, I'm figuring that out by determining whether the plan is uniquely advantageous. I try to avoid intervening, but nobody's perfect, least of all the debaters in rounds I judge. I'm more likely to default to my "theoretical" preferences (about how arguments interact to produce a decision) than any "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (about the relative merits of a position or claim). I don't recall ever stepping in to simply reject an argument as repugnant, although it could happen--I wouldn't do it on  something like malthus or spark, but I probably would on an explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. argument. In terms of theoretical preferences and issues: **Critiques-** I am not a expert of philosophy, but I have vote for my fair share of Ks. It is best to frame this argument in terms of how it links to the aff and that the alternative does something close to tangible. **I like T,** and I think there are some good T battles to be had on this resolution. It's pretty much always a limitations issue for me. I don't care much about specific examples of abuse--I view an excessively broad interpretation of the resolution as inherently abusive to negs. Running a critical or performance case does not excuse the aff from the burden of being topical. Moreover, the topicality aspect of the case probably needs to be explained in non-performance language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading addresses the issue of resolutionality. Also, critiques of the concept of T start out at a disadvantage. I can understand how some critical evidence/arguments might be good reasons to adopt or reject particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. **Counterplans** are cool. Competition is probably the most important element of the CP debate. Competition is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition, but please note that "do both" is NOT a perm, it's just a standard oldschool competition argument. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded that it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive. All of these things are highly debatable. Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.