Holland,+Leo

My philosophy could not be simpler, at least for me to write. I had identical coaches to those that Jason Peterson had through all of my formative years in high school and college. Identical debate upbringing makes our philosophies very similar. My philosophy is almost identical to his with three exceptions or updates.

First, I differ from him on T debates. I agree with him that many topicality debates were generated by lazy debaters however, it has become my belief that too many affirmatives are liberal with the “substantial” or “significantly” modifier in the resolution. Some of the poor trends in negative strategy began as a response to squirrelly cases. I am more inclined to listen to arguments on this modifier than most judges so if you have a tiny plan you might want to look elsewhere and pref me out.

The second issue is on framework. I give a lot of leeway in the framework debate to the side that most resembles what I believe policy debate to be. This does not mean that I won’t vote out of my comfort level, but it does mean that creative positions have a lot of work to do to win a ballot from me. I prefer the traditional game, but I will try to be fair. I spend a lot of time coaching this activity, and I hate to be told that the activity is flawed.

Finally, as you might expect the K is not my game. I would like to offer my personal spin to Jason’s explanation. Probably because I am a few years older than JP, the crutch of the negative when I was coming up was the generic K (with no alt) in CEDA. I agree with everything Jason wrote about the real world and Zizek, but I will add that I think the aff should not be afraid to just have a straight up debate on both the framework and merits of the K. They run CAP BAD you run traditional debate and CAP GOOD.

Anything else that is missing here can probably be found at http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Peterson%2C+Jason Otherwise ask me and I will do my best to answer for you.