Prince,+Glenn

Background: I competed in policy debate for most of my career before transitioning to college parliamentary debate and a style of policy debate that we refer to as "LD." I cleared at CEDA Nationals, have a national championship in parliamentary debate, and coach a form of policy debate now. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I've been competing or coaching debate for 18 years. While they may make me seem like a dinosaur, I keep up with what goes on in debate and attempt to judge the debate based on the parameters provided by the debaters. I default to a policy making paradigm. I will default to humanistic impacts if given no other options in the debate. I tend to think all arguments are conditional.

__SPECIFIC ISSUES:__

__TOPICALITY:__ I vote on topicality more than most people, but that doesn't really mean much because most debates don't come down to T. I am willing to vote against the affirmative because it just isn't an example of the resolution, but will default to whatever evaluative framework you decide in the debate.

__DISADVANTAGES:__

1. Uniqueness debates often decide these questions. 2. A good link turn is always better than a generic impact turn. 3. Clearly explained/evidenced internal link claims are key to winning a substantial impact. 4. Equal scrutiny is given to the internals of disadvantages and affirmative advantages. 5. Impact evidence needs to actually provide an impact: far too many stop at a descriptive, internal linkish sounding argument.

__COUNTERPLANS:__

1. I like all kinds of them: delay, multiple, unconditional, conditional, whatever. 2. I tend to view theory debates on counterplans as reason to reject the argument, not the team. 3. Solvency arguments on counterplans should open to the same consideration as affirmative solvency claims. 4. Permutations are only a test of competitiveness.

__KRITIKS:__

1. Specificity of the link is key--generic link debates are just that: generic. 2. I prefer alternatives that move past rejection and into something more pragmatic. 3. Topic specific criticisms are a lot more interesting/compelling to me. 4. Seeking out specific links found in the 1AC are key to solidifying the debate.

__OTHER STUFF:__

1. I love debate. You should too. I will do my best to evaluate the debate in the fairest, most equitable way possible. 2. Be kind to each other. I love a good snarky cross-x, but have fun doing it and don't make people miserable or feel bad about themselves. Debate should be a space of fun, engaged disagreement, but there's no need to be a jerk. 3. My speaker points range 26-30. A 30 happens once every other year or so. A 29 is really good from me. 4. Paperless debate is great, but be proficient in how to use it and efficient in executing it during the round. It shouldn't add 20 minutes to the debate. 5. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have before the debate about me and after the debate about my decision in your round.