Peterson,+Brian

Name = Brian Peterson Affiliation = Glenbrook South College Attended: University of Texas

I try to be totally tabula-rasa when I judge. I’ll vote for any position if it is won. For something more specific, here are my particular views- General Framework: Absent any discussion of framework by the debaters, I default to policy-making. However, it is very rare that there is no discussion of framework. If there is a debate about what framework I should be in, I will evaluate the arguments with no predispositions for or against any particular framework. I can side with ethics/representations just as easily as I can with policy-making. At the end of the round, I will determine which framework I should be in PRIOR to any other argumentative issues (other than topicality/theory, unless I am given a viable reason to evaluate framework before those) because this issue affects all other decisions I have to make, so argue framework wisely.

Topicality: Generally speaking, topicality is the gateway issue that I will address first. I am willing to vote for arguments that “outweigh” topicality (ethics, etc.), but this will require a lot of work by the affirmative. I believe that affirmatives should have a statement of advocacy (whether or not this involves “fiat” or “demand” or any other number of verbs is up for debate) that is stable so that the negative has something to attack. This statement should be tied to the resolution. I will not automatically vote against a team that violates this principle, but I will probably defer to the negative’s arguments if they are reasonably articulated. I am neutral on the debate between in-round and potential abuse. This means that I am willing to vote for either, as long as I am given reasons to that are compelling. I am also willing to reject either as reasons to vote if I am given reasons that are compelling. **I tend to default to a framework of competing interpretations: aff teams should have an interpretation of the resolution that they meet, and reasons that interpretation is good for debate.**

Theory: I evaluate theory like I evaluate disadvantages: there should be discussion of uniqueness (is the “abuse” inevitable?), links, and impacts. The impacts should be compared (ground vs. education, for example) and weighed. I will vote on theory just as easily as I will vote on any other issue, as long as it is given the time and effort that the other issues you want me to vote on are given.

Counterplans: I am not predisposed against any counterplans. That being said, the 2AC has the ability to prove that any counterplans (and this means plain-old PICs too) are illegitimate and should be voted against. But I am also will to accept multiple conditional consultation counterplans (or anything else that is “abusive”), if the 2NR thinks she/he is able to defend that. I tend to lean negative on permutations because there is usually a risk of the net-benefit still linking to the plan action.

Kritiks: I evaluate kritiks in whichever framework the kritik puts me into, assuming the negative wins the framework debate. This means that the kritik does not necessarily need an alternative that is put into action with the ballot, but I would prefer (for theoretical reasons) that whatever the negative claims the kritik does/does not do in the 1NC is the same as what the 2NR says it does/does not do. I have no problems with the negative claiming that the alternative solves various things later in the debate, as long as the METHOD for solving those various things is the same. In other words, things like “statism” or “capitalism” or “violence” can be advantages to the alternative, as long as the way the alternative solves them is stable. If this method is vague, I will defer to the affirmative on any permutations.

Disadvantages: Nothing special here; I evaluate them based on impact comparisons with the affirmative. I am willing to decide on “100% uniqueness/link/impact take-outs” if it is clear that they are won. This also applies to advantages.

Offensive Language: Like I said at the beginning, I try to be totally tabula-rasa and I will vote on any argument that is presented without bias. This means that I will never punish a team for beingHowever, I am VERY against racist/sexist (this means gendered)/heterosexist language in debate rounds. I will punish speakerpoints for these infractions, even if the other teams do not point them out. Please be careful of your use of offensive language.