Plutowski,+Luke

Debated four years at Wayzata High School. Current debater at the University of Minnesota and coach at Edina High School.

- Paperless: I won’t take prep time to jump speeches. Don’t take too much time.

- Run what you feel comfortable with. I will (try to) be as objective as possible. Like all judges, I have certain predispositions, but I can’t think of an argument think of an argument I wouldn’t let someone run. If an argument is bad/offensive, you should be able to beat it easily (isn’t that why the argument is bad?).

- Impact turns are the sex of the debate world.

- Persuasion is undervalued. Evidence quality outweighs quantity. I will not intervene or yell clear in the same way I will not shout out arguments you should make – if I can’t understand you, I will not flow. Be funny – make fun of people I know (or me). Make your debate something I want to talk about with other people after the round.

- Cross-x is often misused. I don’t see the value in asking rhetorical questions or saying stuff like “you read this politics card; why is it so shitty” – those are args you’re going to make anyway. A good cx is rewarded in speaker points.

- “1% risk outweighs” framing makes no sense – a good or conceded defensive argument can reduce the risk of a disad to zero. I am compelled by strong probability outweighs magnitude claims, something rarely argued today. I’m a poker player so if you pull some sick EV/pot odds (survival odds?) calculations I’ll be impressed. I think it’s helpful to read cards on how to do impact calc, but make sure you can explain them (why magnitude should always come before probability, e.g.)

- I’ve realized I lean aff on a lot of theory issues (condo bad, international fiat bad, politics DA’s non intrinsic, etc.). Again, depends on the arguments in the debate, that’s just my opinion. If a theory argument is well explained and impacted beyond “voter for fairness and education” I’m willing to vote on it.

- New arguments:


 * Don’t spend more than 3 seconds pointing out something is new/dropped
 * All new arguments through the 1nr are justified
 * 2nc extrapolation usually justifies new 1ar arguments. I don’t consider a “ontology doesn’t come first” card in the 1ar new, even if you read one card about it in the 1nc. 2ac’s too time pressed to deal with all those tricks. Debate shouldn’t be about playing gotcha. Reading a “cap key to nanotech” card (when the 2ac was perm, Gibson graham, transition wars, and cap solves war) //is// new.
 * New 2nr/2ar impact calc is justified, other arguments are probably not

- If neg goes for T, the overriding question for me is “what interpretation is best for debate?” This means T is less about in round abuse and more about what the topic would look like in your interpretation. Explain why the ground you lose is important and why a big topic is bad. Aff – I think the best way to win most T debates is a good explanation of reasonability + a good counter-interp. Most neg interps are about minute delineations that are subsumed by a reasonable counter-interpretation.

- Judge’s choice –status quo is always an option unless the aff raises an objection. Voting aff is a vote for the plan, voting neg is voting for not the plan. Voting neg is not voting for a negative advocacy. So, if there is a compelling reason the plan is bad, even if it conflicts with other arguments made in the 2nr, I’ll vote on it. It seems illogical that a lot of judges think condo is good in the 1nc but conflicting arguments in the 2nr is a no-no.

- A judge should not have to be well-versed in Kritik literature to understand your argument – debate is about adaptation. I have a breadth but not a great depth of K lit knowledge. K’s/authors I know the most about: Marx, Nietzsche, Eco-Managerialism (some Heidegger, not a lot), positive peace, security (fem IR) arguments. K’s you should spend more time explaining: Bataille, D&G, Derrida, Lacan, discourse/reps/dirty words – so, postmodernism.

- Non resolutional affs – I’ve voted for these affs a high percentage of the times I’ve judged them, but I generally think topical affs are good. I think a lot of performance teams (hell, policy teams too) suffer from a lack of specificity. You must answer these two questions: why should I care about your argument and what does the ballot mean?

- Read Calum Matheson’s philosophy – I think my views on debate are very similar to his.