Peterson,+Caitlin

Background: I debated from 2004-2008 with Appleton East High School in Wisconsin. I primarily debated in-state VSS (with a little bit of out of state travel, including one NFL nationals), and I also did a fair amount of LD here and there throughout high school. Since 2008 I have judged both policy and LD occasionally in Wisconsin.

__LD__ 1. I default to a paradigm based upon the standards debate. I don't necessarily need to hear a formal value-criterion structure, but your arguments should link to a standard which directly engages the resolution, unless you give me a good reason why they should not. I'm open to other ways of viewing and evaluating the round, but I need you to give and defend reasons why I should do so. 2. I want to hear you weigh your impacts- I don't want to have to do this work for you at the end of the round. Tell me why your impacts matter, especially compared to those of your opponent. 3. Extensions should be thorough and should relate to the rest of the debate. Extend the warrant, etc, within a piece of evidence, not just its tagline. I like to see a discussion of how this extension relates to the debate as it has progressed since the evidence was first read. 4. Theory debate is fine, just be clear and make sure you discuss the impacts of the theory arguments being made. 5. Same for topicality, although I'd rather not see it used as just a time-suck. 6. Speed is fine, but be clear. Differentiate between the reading of evidence and of your own written case, and make it clear if you're moving on to a new argument.