Peterson,+Sydney

High School: Ridgeview HS, Bakersfield, CA (2008-present) Competitor: East Bakersfield HS (1999-2000); CSU Bakersfield and Bakersfield College (2000-2002) Event: Policy

Though I am a policy debater, I have become much more comfortable with LD over the last couple of years coaching as an assistant and now the head coach at RHS. Because of my policy experience in high school and college, I'm pretty good with the flow and tend to be able to follow most arguments that are given at a good clip. However, the league in which I coach is not fast, so I'm not as quick as I used to be.

That being said, for LD, I like to see plenty of clash on the value debate. Since I'm fairly new at the LD game, keeping the arguments consistent, clear, and on point with the resolution is the best way to win my ballot. Though I'm not well-versed in "progressive LD," based on the limited knowledge I do have, I think I would be able to understand your progressive choices since they seem to be very close to some of the policy movements I have seen over the years. However, that does not give you license to assume I know the philosophers, theories, or arguments. It's still your job to make them on the flow.

I try to adjudicate the debate based on what the flow tells me. I feel very strongly that this is your debate round, not mine, and I won't do the work on the flow for you to win OR lose. Ultimately, you have to make sure that you're arguing effectively and clearly enough that I write it down and it is carried throughout the debate.

As for arguments, I think keeping any debate round simple is advantageous. If you structure your debate round off the idea that there will be a value, evidence for that value, and clash against your opponent, any arguments you make within that structure should be easy to understand. Any arguments that may be confusing or overly esoteric should always be related to the overall value and the resolution at hand. Always tie your arguments back to the resolution, and the debater who does the best job at upholding his or her value through the use of sound reason, logic, evidence, and refutation will likely win my ballot.

Finally, and I tell this to my policy debaters and think it is applicable to LDers as well, the most important thing you can do for me is impact calculus. My ballot represents a vote to uphold one person's value over another, so I have to clearly understand why upholding your value is the most important decision in the round. By evaluating the "impacts" to voting for your value over voting for the opposition's value, I have a better understanding of why your argument is paramount in the round. Also, if the impacts aren't competitive (say physical harm versus discourse), you not only have to explain why your impact is better but also why the opponent's impact should NOT be evaluated over yours. This can be a difficult distinction to make, but it can be the difference between a win or a loss.

As a final note, I always try my best to be as fair as possible to the competitors involved, and I acknowledge that though I may not be as well-versed in LD as I am in policy, I can hopefully understand your arguments and the discussions that will come on both sides.

Good luck!