Peterson,Kristofer

> **General Information for Kristofer Peterson ** > //Mtn. View HS & Los Altos HS - California// > > Debate is a game. Use whatever tools necessary to win it. Some tools are more effective than others, so using smarts is involved. In the end, do what you do best. If you’re really good at it, then I will vote for you. Debate is also a noble & academic competitive activity. I expect the highest degree of decorum and civility within the round. Respecting other debaters will increase your speaker points and enhance one's likelihood of success. > > The easiest way to win my ballot is to give advantages and disadvantages and weight impacts that map back to value/criteria/framework and then write my ballot for me. ('I win for these three reasons which outweigh those articulated by the otherside'). I frown upon any new arguments from the affirmative during the final speech. Re-explaining existing arguments is great. I won't intervene on the flow and make arguments for you so please make sure you put them out there in your speeches.

If the affirmative defines terms and the negative also defines terms without explaining how theirs are better/more appropriate for the round, I will ignore the negative's definitions and think that time is being wasted. Procedural arguments that impact to the educational value of the round are great. So if the aff's terms take away too much ground say that.

I competed during the mid-1990s in college Parli for three seasons, plus a year of CEDA Policy debate with plans & criteria. In high school I competed successfully in LD for three years. Recently I've also coached & judged HS LD in the Bay Area. Speed is fine as long as it is accompanied by clarity. I want to hear rebuttals that are well-signposted and structured. I've lived and work internationally since 1997 and appreciate global example, smart humor and sensible arguments with meaningful impacts.

I hope that debaters weight impacts for me (per above) and do this step for me. I like clear impacts that show me what I am doing (saving people, making the world better / safer / cleaner / greener. Debaters who are smart in their examples and arguments will win my votes. Style wise if you sound extemporaneous and fluid that trumps arguments that sound recycled and canned.

Rarely do I call for cards / evidence after rounds. However, if I do so and discover that evidence has been misused or wrongly explained someone will probably see my sad face. Instead, what I love to hear is the qualifications of a source accompanied by reasoning why this evidence is bigger / better / more compelling for the round. That is smarter debate. > **Speaker points** > I award 25-30 points, usually on the high side at national circuit tournaments. Please see initial comments on decorum and civility. I will give a low point win if there's an issue with respectful behavior in the round. Also, morally repugnant arguments will result in lower speaker points so be cautious and smart.

**Kritik / Theory Arguments** How do I approach critically framed arguments? With a very big grain of salt. So please make them exceptionally good if one is going to make them at all. Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Yes. Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? Yes. > > Topicality is different than other theory arguments in that I am more tolerant of it. You should feel free to go for it if that makes the most strategic sense and you are good at it.