Kegan Ferguson ParadigmLast changed 10/26 2:50P EDT
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com. Include underrated hip hop songs/artists on the chain.
Assistant Director of Debate at North Broward Prep.
Debated at Indiana University. Sixth year judging.
How to get high speaker points and a W from me:
I'll default to tech > truth unless something egregious happens. That means excellent line-by-line is at the top of the must-have's chart for me, and will drastically boost speaks.
I would rather see smart, in-depth debating as opposed to scattershot strategies - though both have their place. The best debates develop intelligent arguments and have clear clash over core controversies. The worst have 12-off and pray for 2ac slip-up's for a W.
I appreciate snark, but strongly dislike rudeness. Debate rounds should be enjoyable and cordial until we get to elims.
CP's: Read however many of them and whatever kind you want, then hash it out in the debate. Big fan of specific PIC's and smart advantage CP's. Note: be clear when going for theory - slow it down a bit.
DA's: Topic DA's don't exist this year. Most agenda/election DA's will be dead for the Michigan tournament - but if you can Frankenstein something I did work in politics for ~4 years and love judging these debates.
Topicality: I default to competing interps and think that reasonability generally requires the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable. Apparently T-enact is a core generic on this topic.
K's: I find many of the Plan v. K rounds I'm in to be underwhelming. Too much time is spent on framework for K's that don't critique fiat and too little time is spent developing a coherent link/impact. Too often the 2ac misses the boat on the specific K and relies too much on generics. Dead-ends for me: Aff FW = no k's, 'link has to be to the plan,' and cloud clash as a concept.
FW v. K Affs: Fairness can be an a-priori impact if you win it is one. Debate is an offense-defense activity and clearly explaining your offense matters a lot. Affs can win on impact turns to T alone - but I prefer a strategy where the aff is forwarding an alternative counterinterp and vision for debate. The Aff also needs an explanation of why debate/the ballot matters for their argument - otherwise I find presumption and ballot PIC arguments very persuasive. To me, FW debates are decided by whose interp cultivates a better educational model for good debates.
Ethics: Don't be hateful or use bigoted language. Don't clip. Don't intentionally steal prep. I'll intervene here if I think my role as an educator requires me to do so.
29.6 -30: I would like to frame this speech and you deserve a nice speaker award at this tournament.
29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like a top 10 debater at a national tournament.
28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a octos or doubles team.
28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you should be .500
28 – 28.4: Debating on a very average level
27-27.9: lots of room for improvement
Below 27: You have used some hateful language, been excessively rude, or given up mid speech
Disclosure = slight speaker point bump
I don't need to be there for the flip. I don't care what side of the room you sit on.
If you take minutes to bring up a card that was called for I will tank your speaks.
Impact calc is most important.
Warrants beat taglines.
2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st, non-negotiable. First summary should extend defense, especially given the 3 minute change. Arguments in final need to be in the summary. Argument spin I could clearly see coming is not new.
Keep your evidence in cut card form, and don't just hand me an article if I call for evidence after the round. I will discount it. Don't misrepresent things and then get caught when I read evidence after the round - that's a quick way to a low speaks L.