Glenzer,+Sam

**SAM GLENZER - JUDGING PHILOSOPHY - VARSITY POLICY DEBATE**
SPASH Stevens Point, WI

I fall under the confines of the tabula rasa judging philosophy.... so there isn't an argument I won't vote on if you're winning on it. I do however have some preferences.

I debated for two years at SPASH, and since then I have been judging Varsity debate for four years now at in state(Wisconsin) and national tournaments ranging from the Iowa Caucus to the NFL National tournament. I've judged approximately forty rounds this year, including breaks, and so far I've voted negative roughly 60 percent of the time.

Very seldomly have I come across someone who is so fast that I literally cant catch a word they're saying so speed is highly encouraged, but remember clarity. This doesn't however mean that several poor arguments will necessarily beat out one well developed argument. If you aren't clear, I'll warn you twice, but if you're still unclear beyond that, look at me with my pen down.

Since I work for a Mayor, politics are my favorite argument, but be sure that the uniqueness and link evidence are up to date. This means it'd be neat to hear arguments about the upcoming midterm elections.

I love the kritik, and I've voted for it far more times for it than against it, but I hate when teams think its good enough to keep repeating the same tag line of what their argument is but fail to understand what their author's original intent of their writings were. I'd encourage an elaborate link story, especially with the Cap K since teams seem to run it in response to anything under the sun. So please, please, please, be able to explain exactly what your kritik is trying to say in SPECIFIC terms relative to the round. The framework/role of the ballot debate is also extremely important to my decision.

Counterplans are pretty sweet, and I prefer them to be of the competitive nature. It gets annoying when the entire debate is dragged into a conditionality good or bad theory debate. That isn't saying I'm not a fan of it though. Expect a standing ovation for 5 minutes of conditionality bad in the 2AR. It's always impressive, especially when its done well. When doing this though it's important to impact your arguments as to why it's uniquely abusive in the case in the round. Without that impact, its hard for me to find offense to vote on it.

In general when it comes to theory, I tend to have an anything goes attitude, provided that again, the arguments are well impacted. I'd encourage you to try to articulate your 50 points clearly when you're going for them, since there's a chance I may miss a blip if you're blazing through them.

Generic disadvantages are sometimes interesting to hear, but please be sure that they actually link when they are used, and try not to double turn yourself. It makes the round painful for everyone.

In general, keep your evidence up to date. It's always a laugh to hear it called out when something thats already come to pass. Call out your warrants, and don't lie about it either, because I will occasionally ask for evidence at the end of a round.

Topicality is probably my favorite issue and one of the least well run. Though sometimes acceptably argued as non-substantive, the T debate keeps affirmatives in check. I value this as someone who believes that the resolution is only as good as it is advocated.

I really really really don't like inherency arguments, and thankfully I haven't ever been forced to vote on it. I take that back. Sadly this year that has changed. Instead I just have to live with that shame.

This might be rather lacking in details on face, so feel free to ask me any questions on any specific issues you might have, I'm open to nearly any argument.... Performance affs are not recommended, but if you manage to win the debate, I will vote on it.