Peterson,+Jim

I debated for four years at St. John's in Massachusetts, and am currently a student at UMass Amherst.

I default to an offense-defense paradigm, but I'm open to other ways of evaluating the round. I try to be as objective as possible. I won't do any work for you, and I will only call for evidence if the content of that evidence is contested. I give dropped arguments full weight. Open c/x is legit, but please be civil.

Topicality - I don't particularly enjoy judging topicality debates, but I will definitely vote if it is impacted properly. I default to a framework of competing interpretations, but I am sympathetic to reasonability arguments. I don't know the high school topic yet - don't assume I know any acronyms or specific cases.

Critiques - Good critique debates are why I wake up in the morning. I feel that critiques make more sense on a discursive/performative level than as policy issues, so framework debates should be implicated in your critique. I probably know the literature, but still expect you to clearly explicate your evidence. Don't ignore the case - I prefer specific links and impact analysis with clear connections to the affirmative. I tend to give permutation arguments more weight than most judges.

Theory - Conditionality is legit. I think consult, condition, and delay counterplans are borderline cheating. That said, I am willing to vote against any of these personal predispositions if you convince me to in the round.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to clarify further before a round.