Ferguson,+Tom

Judge Wiki update—

My background—

I debated for a total of 5 years in High School (from the WMD topic to Civil Liberties) and a year in college at UCO (courts) and will probably be debating for the University of Minnesota next fall.

I think debate is both political and a game. I think that the best part of debate is finding interesting ways of relating positions (policy or critiques). On the aff I did everything from “playing” with the topic in a Nietzschian sense to arguing space alien technology good to terrorism bad for 8 minutes with a schell framework. I've critiqued T, impact turned limits and fairness and even was topical a few times. On the neg I was fairly consistent on going for a few positions: Zizek, Churchill or Topicality. However, I've went for dis-ads, Cps, case turns and many different kinds of critiques.

A few points—

If I call for evidence I will **ONLY** read the underlined portion. This is the only way for me to objectively evaluate the piece of evidence. If you read more of the evidence in a later part of the debate, tell me before I read it or i'll assume it was never read.

I am best described as a default tab judge although being completely tab is hard. I have preferences within specific arguments which will be listed below. If no framework is presented in round I will default to the affirmatives framework of 1AC impact calculation (policy making, ontology, etc).

I will vote on cheap-shots. I have no problem doing so.

I won't discredit new 2NR arguments unless the 2AR says so but with the 2AR I will do my best to protect the 2NR against new arguments however it's hard to limit new extrapolation unless impacted in the 2NR.

With that in mind lets get to specifics—


 * Topicality**— I think in a perfect world in which debaters executed arguments flawlessly, topicality would be the best debate. I think the resolution doesn't have a meaning till being put in context of the specific round. I think warranted impact analysis is where any debate is won and loss but this is especially a true in terms of topicality. I default to competing interpretations paradigm but have no issue using another if presented.


 * Dis-advantages**—I will not just assume “there is always a risk of a link” and I think this argument is silly unless it's a substantial link. I'm a big fan of big impact/case turn/impact turn debates. I've been known to vote on “nuke war is great for the environment” but also on “nuke war leads to rape, turning case.” Impact analysis is needed. Fact: if the neg does none and the aff does some, i'm more likely to vote aff.

Can project teams actually kill US leadership? Can dentists really solve over-stretch? Does the aff really result in a neo-isolationaist policy that would trigger world war 4 (because we all know world war 3 is currently in progress by native americans against the man). These are questions that should be addressed.


 * CP-**I am in love with abusive CP's. Philosophical competition is amazing. Just to be clear, I believe if the neg goes for the CP in the 2NR then the affirmative gets presumption. I think solvency for a CP is never a reason to endorse the CP over the aff. I think that case turns the CP avoid ARE cool reasons to vote for the CP. I think consult CP's are legit most of the time but am willing to buy theory against them (i'll get more onto that later though). Good 2NC/NR overviews of the CP will win rounds. Good 2AC/2AR answers and impact turns/no solvency arguments will win the round. I want clash on cp's.


 * The critique**- I am going to defuse a myth right now—i will never hack out for the k team. In fact, if you're the aff, you have a much more likely chance of picking up my ballot if you're impact turning. If you are link turning then I normally would err neg. While I am not an expert on most positions, I am pretty deep on most K lit because i've ran most K's at some point in my life.

I think if the aff doesn't attack the alt/impact then they are already two steps behind. I think that most K alts must be talked about for a minute or 2 in the neg block in order to justify new 2NR extrapolation.

Impact turn debates are beautiful. Space, Heg, nano, econ, relations and the state can be amazingly awesome.

I am not a big fan of 'neg flex' because I like seeing K rounds developed early. Not that i'd vote on neg flex without warrant but i'm not a fan of reading security and read 3 das and a xo cp.

Permutations—

perms that I like—do both.

Perms that I don't like—everything else.

Unlike current debate practice, perms don't = link turn, they are //just// a test of the alternative. I think there are times when you can win the perm but still lose on the K, albeit, they are rare.

I think that alts must have a clearly defined text. “the card is the text” doesn't cut it.

I like K's that have cool names also.
 * Non-traditional affs –** I am probably your biggest supporter/biggest hater. I love projects, I think debate must be abolished or reformed. Debate IS racist, classist, sexist and/or homophobic. Thats not including the thousands of other “-isms” that it is (smoker-ism, thats why debate is failing...smokers, I swear). However, those things are **probably sweet** and teams that are willing to defend why white is better than black and more than welcomed to say so in front of me – however, don't feel like that is an automatic win. Teams that can explain why racism is bad are also just as welcomed. It, once again, comes down to impact cal. Explain why patriarchy solving space is better than me solving sexism in debate in this round.


 * Framework –** the best framework debates come out in the 1AC/1NC debate. I have no real prefrence, if the neg wins that we shouldn't evaluate the aff's impacts then I don't. If the aff wins that we should ignore the K, I ignore it. Carded frameworks are good. Carded frameworks that have impacts are better. Paint me a world of what debate looks like in each framework.


 * Theory—**Theory debates are tricky. I think that by default I reject the team before I reject the argument. I think that most CP's are legit if you can defend them and I think if you can defend a krazy k alt then you are more than welcome to. Floating PIKS are 'aight, conditional affs can be good and sometimes an unconditional cp is bad. Impact your theory and ill be happy.

If you have any questions, ask me.