Peters,+Dustin

Dustin Peters Affiliation: Okoboji

I debated LD for four years and PF for three years in high school and three years in college. This is my fifth year judging. I usually judge LD. I studied Philosophy and Political Science at Simpson College.

Spreading's fine. If you're going too fast for me (which is rare) or are not being clear, I'll yell, "Clear." If you don't become clear, I will yell "Clear" again and put down my pen. I only vote for what's on the flow.

I like standards, but I'm fine if you don't have any, just show me how you're meeting your opponents or explain why you don't need them. Framework is extremely important; it tells me how to evaluate and weigh the round. I like clash. Use argumentation that is responsive and make sure you have impacts. If there's no impact, I can't give any weight to the argument. I'm fine with using strategy, just make sure it addresses the argument and is topical.

I really, really, really do not like theory. If you're going to run theory, makes sure it's justified, make clear why it's justified, run it well. Bad theory is a reason for me to vote you down. It's rarely a primary voting issue.

I'm cool with kritiks, topicalities, counter plans, and off-cases. Make them clear to me, show me the link, and give me the impacts. I don't like conditional counter plans because of the time skew.

Crystallizing makes voting clearer for me. It's not necessary, but it's a nice thing to do.