Stuttgen,+Luke

I debated for four years at Apple Valley High School (MN) and graduated in 2012. I have not judged a round nor coached since fall 2014. Short version is that I will generally judge similar to Chris Theis.

I default to viewing the round from a comparative worlds paradigm. However, if any argument is won about why I should view the resolution as a statement of truth, I will adopt that paradigm. I will be happiest (and therefore most willing to give high speaks) in a round that is actually about the topic, with comparison between arguments and clear advocacies offered by both debaters. As a disclaimer I have no background in law nor will I have done any research on the topic prior to judging at the Glenbrooks.

I am fine with most speed as long as you’re clear. I'll say clear once or twice but beyond that I'll just stop flowing. I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed – most short a prioris, spikes, etc will not meet that burden. I may count them as a weak defensive argument, but only if I feel like it was my fault for not flowing it, as opposed to being caused by a lack of clarity, intentional blippiness or having an unclear implication. If you are making complex arguments, slow down.

In terms of theory, I won’t be too happy with frivolous theory, and your speaks will show it. However, I’m not opposed to theory; a good, comparative theory debate is something that I will actually enjoy.

I will not vote for arguments that create a hostile environment for me, either debater, or others in the room. Related to this, I will not vote for pre-fiat arguments that do not link directly to an action that was done in round. I will almost certainly not vote on presumption arguments or most forms of skepticism, so reading these sorts of arguments in front of me is probably a waste of time. I am also very unlikely to vote on undeveloped or blippy arguments. If you are a debater who relies on these sorts of arguments, I advise striking me or at least not running them in front of me.

I base speaker points primarily on strategy/how good I think you are at debate. If I think you deserve to break at most national circuit tournaments you will probably receive around a 28.5. Practices I dislike, poor strategic choices and being extremely unclear will decrease that.