Petersen,+David

David Petersen Cedar Rapids Washington 09' Iowa 14'

I debated for four years at CR Washington in Cedar Rapids Iowa. I debated at the University of Iowa for a year.

Last updated 2016


 * Plan Focus/Not Plan Focus (Short Version)--It seems like a lot of my peers have added little messages like this to their philosophies, so I will follow. I did nothing but plan focused debate on the AFF my entire career. While I have been exposed to many NPF AFFs and have prepared many non-framework responses to NPF AFFs, I tend to think PF debate is good. That is not to say I am going to vote on framework 100% of the time, but a team that knows how to execute the framework debate against NPF AFFs will most likely do well with me in the back of the room. Will you loose for not reading a plan? No. Will you have a tougher time beating a framework argument with me in the room? Yes. If I am on a strike card, I'd take a good look at the other names on the list. If you have experience with someone voting for NPF AFFs, pick them. If it is me or someone who lives to vote framework, pick me.**

Listed below is an outline for how I view debate, what actually happens in the debate will impact my decision in a greater way then the thoughts on debate I list below. If I vote neg on the Consult Nato c/p, and you are like "but you said you didn't think it is competitive", clearly the neg just beat you on the theory of competition. What I am saying is that in almost every instance below I can be persuaded to vote the opposite as well.

Larger Issues- 1.I will reward people for making a debate more interesting for me to watch. This can be in the form of jokes, smart arguments, explaining the intricacies of your arg and why your opponents answers don't matter, ect. 2. The way I will evaluate the round (if not told otherwise) will be if a topical plan presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive option. If it is I will vote Affirmative and if it is not I will vote negative. This should not deter you from changing the way in which I will evaluate the debate but you need to do so clearly. Having said that I think a lot of (generic K) framework debates can be resolved by racing to the middle. 3. I think it is important for me to point out that I will have a high threshold for reading evidence and also evaluating arguments. I will not give much weight (even to a good piece of ev) to evidence that the 2NR or 2AR extends in 5 seconds, I think the warrants of the evidence and how those apply to the other teams argument need to be brought out IN the debate. Also I will have a high threshold for evaluating arguments. If an argument is not well explained or I just don't understand I will probably not vote on it. 4. You should be ready and able to go for any argument in the 1NC. 5. I think cross-x is binding.

More Specific T--- I think T is a voter. I will most likely resolve T between two competing interpretations of the resolution. Although just because the neg has just a little better interpretation does not mean I think the aff loses on T, so in that instance reasonability or debatability may make some sense, but the aff better have reasonable definitional support. So reasonability is not a yes or no question that either side has to win it is just defense.

D/A--- I love an aff specific d/a but also love the topic and then "debate generic" d/as. I think impact calc is very important. By impact calc I do not mean just the normal magnitude, t/f, prob, although these are still important, I mean the question of if the Aff impacts are internal or external of the d/a impacts and vis versa. If you can prove that the aff harms are inevitable in the world of the d/a impact you are in a good spot. Also impact uniqueness is a very if not most important part of the impact. Another thing is I don't think Uniqueness to a d/a itself is a yes or no question. No team will ever win a 100% chance that X bill will pass, and if they do that is the only scenario in which uniqueness controls the direction of the link. Otherwise the link does the controlling.

One thing that may stick out is I will probably go with truth on these flows which means I do not always think there needs to be offense on the paper if the d/a link or other aspects of the d/a do not make sense.

CPs Are good and you probably need one to suck up big affs, or big advantages. theory will be below. I think specific PICS are sweet.

Kritiks Kritiks can be highly strategic, if argument and explanation are provided in place of jargon. If my default decision making framework doesn’t work for these, please change it explicitly. A powerful alternative often makes a powerful permutation. Good explanation needs to be done for some Ks especially if you are reading something that is not the norm.

Condo Is usually fine in the case of one counterplan. I think dispo is sorta silly and not different from condo really. Although I think condo bad can be a sweet time trade off, so probably should be in the round. If a C/P is read conditionally then the status quo is always an option.

Other CP Theory I usually think that process counterplans, consult, delay, ect, ect, should be attacked at the competition level and not the legitimacy level. So I will probably vote on the perm and not the "reject the argument" argument. I think international fiat, 50 state fiat, and some alternate actor fiat can be made to seem logically a reason to reject the counterplan but affs almost never make that argument, or a reason to reject the abusive part of the argument. Teams also seem to not execute very well on theory so negs usually get away with it. PICS are probably a good thing. If your counterplan includes the entire aff then the aff wins.

I think it is useful if you are affirmative to try and extend some form of a theory argument with a voter into the 1AR. It can really pressure the 2NR and make the already hardest speech in debate even harder.

Offense/defenseWinning "zero risk" of an argument is probably very tough to do, but it is much easier to win that the risk of an argument is not enough to impact my decision. I value defensive arguments a bit more then your average debater. I think if you make the true argument even if it is defensive can go along way. Having said that, offense, offense, offense, from a strat standpoint it makes the other teams job hell.

Smaller Issues Presumption is toward less change from the squo. A dropped argument is not a win, you need to impact it--sorta above in my high threshold for arguments. Remember to have fun and not be mean.

If any of this is unclear feel free to ask me before the round.