Ferguson,+Kegan

** Last updated 11/10/2014 **   ** I AM A FLEX JUDGE ** ** Seriously, I have no predispositions. **  ** My debate history: **

I debated for 3 years at a high school in Indiana. I mostly did Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. Policy Debate did not exist in Indiana. In those events, I experienced quite a bit of success on the Indiana and NFL circuits. Due to budget constraints and Indiana debate mentality, I never competed at a circuit tournament in high school.

I'm currently in the middle of my second year of college policy debate at Indiana University. I've worked at debate camps for the past two summers, debated the entirety of the past two seasons, and have generally worked on and watched a loooooot of debates. I'm up to date in this year's topic literature, and can easily and effectively judge a high school round.

** Views on debate as a concept: ** **Debate is a game**, and there is nothing wrong with that. Games are fun, and they can teach us a lot of useful skills. Games can bring about critical thinking, winning/losing with respect, conflict negotiation, and many more positive benefits. Viewing debate as agame, however, means that rules do exist. Those rules are negotiable, and they don't mean you have to be the USFG, but they do exist. Games aren't any fun when nobody plays by the rules. **Debate can also be a space for activism**. I honestly believe that what people say in a debate round matters. While we may not be able to correct all of the social ills that have an effect on our community, I think there can be meaningful dialogue about the existence of those problems. Language matters, and we should pay attention to the way we use it. **Racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/hateful language usage in round will be met with drastically reduced speaker points).** I understand that it's hard to catch yourself when using a lot of these words, but that doesn't make their usage okay. **Adaptation and specific research** is a beautiful part of debate. As Ed Lee puts it: "One of the unique values of competitive debate is its ability to train students to quickly assess and evaluate information from various sources. I do not think there is a better pedagogical tool for providing this much-needed skill. This has become critically important as the Internet has made information dissemination and access uncontrollable."

** Clarity: ** I can comprehend pretty fast debate. That being said, **don't try to go too fast**. Sacrificing clarity for speed is hardly ever a good decision. In order for a judge to accurately evaluate a round they must understand what you're saying.

** Ideology: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**I do not have a "Policy vs. K" or "tech over truth" predisposition**. I enjoy listening to every argument type equally. I have read enough of the K literature to adequately judge any K round, and I write our team's politics DA enough to keep up with the updates. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">Performance debate is awesome. I really enjoy watching and judging performance debates that are done well. That being said, **I do think all methods of performance should very clearly include a solvency advocate**/explanation of the importance of your performance. This obviously goes for anyone who sticks to "traditional policy debate" as well. If you read a plan which uses the USFG, you should be able to justify that pedagogy. If you read poetry to justify a certain strategy, you should be able to justify that pedagogy. I don't think debaters have enough discussions on why their method of education is effective. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**I will vote on anything.** "If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If debate has an educational value, it comes from the necessity to defend one’s position against a competent adversary on all fronts with a judge who, although objectivity is impossible, does not dismiss arguments out of hand due to their soundness rather than validity."- Calum Matheson

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">** Framework: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**I will be hard to persuade if the Aff is in the direction of the topic.** I understand the need for T/FW when an aff has no relation whatsoever to the topic, or is in the opposite direction. If, however, the aff has a very pertinent relation to the ideology of the topic, or the wording of the topic, FW will be a tough sell. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**What FW should look like__:__** Framework should be about the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in a particular debate practice. There should be a link (ex. "the aff doesn't defend exploration/development"), an impact (ex. "development poicy debates are key to combatting bad government practices), and an explanation for why your interp solves the impacts better than whatever the C/I is. **Jurisdiction and procedural arguments about the rules of debate are not convincing for me.** FW, to me, is more of a question of productive debate practices which cultivate education than it is a question of rules.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px; line-height: 1.5;">I do not like T USFG__.__ **<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px; line-height: 1.5;"> This does not mean I won't vote for the argument, but it does mean that I will sit in the back of the room and roll my eyes every time you read a card from anderson, dahlberg, steinberg and freely, galloway, or lundberg. Again, you can easily win framework with me in the back of the room. It's just boring as hell. I would much rather hear a K with a mediocre link than T USFG.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**I do not enjoy theory debates, and I very rarely find them convincing.** I will not vote on Condo bad unless it's dropped, really poorly answered, or the neg runs more than 2 condo. Squo is also not always an option. I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">Theory arguments I do find convincing: Perf Con, vague alts bad, floating pics bad, an assortment of CP is abusive args, and word PICS bad. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">In general, I have a fairly high threshold for theory. I will vote on it if dropped, mishandled, or if the Neg is clearly abusive.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 1.5;">Theory: **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">** New Arguments: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px; line-height: 1.5;">An argument I could see coming is not new. A new argument is when you don't get to something with enough time, and then you try to answer that in your next speech. It's also important that you explain why an argument was new, and why it being new is bad. Don't just say "this arg was new" and then move on.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">Delay CP's are bad, Conditions CP's are meh, Consult CP's are mediocre, Specific PICS are great. I will only vote down a CP on theory if it's legitimately abusive/unbeatable (if a theory arg is actually made).
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 1.5;">CP's **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">** Topicality: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px; line-height: 1.5;">It’s a real thing. Nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default competing interps. Also questions of reasonability generally require the aff to extend a reasonable C/I.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Kritiks: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I really enjoy good kritiks. Topic specific K's are the best, and always will be. I can keep up with any K literature you throw at me, as long as you're clear. As stated above, I don't have a preference for K's over DA's.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Speaker Points: ** <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">29.6 -30: I think you are debating like a Top 10 debater at a national tournament. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like an Octos debater at a national tournament <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a 5-3 double octofinalist <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you are 4-4 and on the verge of clearing at a national tournament <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">28 – 28.4: You are debating at a very average level. <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">27-27.9: You have a lot of room for improvement <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Below 27: You have actively used hateful language or done violence against other debaters. OR you have given up mid speech.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">**<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">As a final note **<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">: <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333339691162px;">I think arguments about the debate community itself are of the upmost importance. In its current state, debate is incredibly hostile and inaccessible to certain identities. Arguments about why we should be cultivating a better debate space are very convincing to me, and definitely belong in the debate rounds.