Carroll,+Alec

Some (possibly) relevant background: I debated LD from 2013-2017 at Scarsdale High School, never got a bid but made it to elims of a few bid tournaments, and I went to VBI Chicago after my sophomore year of high school. I’m currently a student at Northwestern University.


 * Short version: **

I’ll vote on anything, provided I’m able to explain it back to you in my RFD. I must be able to clearly understand your argument without having to decipher copious amounts of stuff on my flow. Please give me voters slowly and clearly so I know what you’re talking about and can vote on it. Despite this, I’m much more likely to vote on theory/T, util-style plans with extinction, and relevant substance than I am to vote on complicated phil stuff, mostly because I really won’t understand it if you’re spreading and tend not to see links to the topic, non-topical positions, or K’s. I’m not amazing with speed (somewhere between your average parent judge and someone you’d probably pref a 1) but as long as you’re clear and have good, slow, clear voters I’ll be ok. Finally, I like arguments to be at least somewhat relevant to the topic Be funny but not too rude, and ask me questions before the round!


 * Long version: **

I’m not great with speed since I haven’t debated/judged for almost a year. Be clear and start off pretty slow, you can speed up a bit as the round goes on. If you notice me stop flowing, I’d strongly suggest you slow down a lot. I’ll say clear as many times as I need to without any penalty, but if it gets to a point where I basically say it every 15 seconds and you don’t change, I’ll give up and stop flowing. I’ll vote on anything as long as I can clearly understand it and know what you’re talking about. In other words, if I don’t have a damn clue what you’re talking about, you will likely lose.

Generally three categories of args for me: First category, I don’t really like these kinds of args and probably rethink your strat if you’re planning on running them: The next category is stuff I’m ambivalent on; if it’s your go-to then fine, read it, but know that I would prefer other args and keep that in mind because you should probably explain them more clearly in voters: There’s some limbo between these and stuff I do actually like to hear, including tricks and skep (Yes, I’m from Scarsdale but they’re hard for me to evaluate by their nature and my general not great flowing skills) and somewhat critical cases that aren’t K’s per se but have ROB’s.
 * D&G or other radical cap K’s, Fem K’s, Ableism K’s, Gender Binary K’s
 * Dense phil-heavy or framework-heavy stuff including but not limited to Levinas, Foucault, Nietzsche, Kant, or Ripstein
 * Totally non-topical positions, especially if you’re the aff. To quote Ben Ulene, if you, as the aff, refuse to affirm that's fine, but I'll more likely than not refuse to affirm as well.
 * Other K’s, like race K’s (Wilderson, Curry), Islamophobia, or Biopower
 * I-Law or other mildly-dense frameworks, maybe constitutionality

Finally, stuff I do like and will be happy with you if you read:
 * Theory/T
 * CPs/DAs
 * Util with:
 * o Plans
 * o Extinction impacts
 * o Plain old substantive stock contentions

In case you want to know my thoughts on each of these kinds of args, see below after the next few bullets, but the above covers the general view of different args.

Other things you should do during the round:
 * Weigh. It’s true what they tell you in novice year, weighing is very important. The more you weigh the more likely I look positively on your argument, especially if your weighing isn’t just unsubstantiated crap.
 * Weigh standards and voters in theory debates.
 * Show me that there’s clash to args by weighing. (Seeing a trend here?)
 * Give me clear, slow voters. If you’re spreading lots of arguments, chances are I missed at least one. Be sure you tell me why you’re winning (or why you think you’re winning) and how the main arguments in the round interact.
 * Make clear link chains in util-style arguments.
 * Weigh!
 * Make jokes, throw some shade. Try to make them relevant but if you’re just funny about random stuff I like that too; don’t be mean about it though.
 * Dominate during CX. While I’m on CX, I won’t flow it but I’ll pay attention. Don’t claim your opponent said something s/he didn’t, but if you get a concession in CX you have to extend it in later speeches.
 * Signpost so I know where to flow what you’re saying. That’s “starting on the AC”, but also includes “on the argument that she makes…” so that I can know exactly where to flow.
 * Definitely ask me questions before the round about my preferences (or other totally random things) if this doesn’t answer your questions, and also ask me questions after my RFD about what you did/what you can do better. That said, don’t question me

I’ll vote on blippy arguments as long as you actually extend them in later speeches and tell me why they matter in the round. If they’re true and unrefuted, still extend them, but at that point an extension is sufficient to make it relevant to my RFD. I’ll also vote on random sort of sketchy arguments that other judges may not like, such as wi-fi theory, but I happen to dislike disclosure theory. I’ll vote on it but probably don’t plan on running it unless you’re genuinely at a serious disadvantage because of some abuse from it.

Let your opponent read your case over your shoulder if you don’t want to flash cases; I won’t make you flash but you have to let your opponent read over your shoulder, especially if you’re spreading. I’m sympathetic to those who want to read the case, I never was amazing at flowing super-fast spreading and found it really helpful to have the case or read along.

Now thoughts on specific arguments:

My go-to strat for most of junior and senior year was to just read theory on whatever I could (Yes, I am from Scarsdale), and I basically had a few shells I would read and make genuinely applicable. Some might call this frivolous, and sometimes it was, but I did really try to make legit links to fairness and education in my shells. That said, I’ll vote for you on theory if you’re winning it and can tell me why you’re winning on it, no matter how frivolous. Notes on theory:
 * Theory/T:**
 * Read your interp really slowly so I can clearly understand it.
 * Theory comes before the K unless you really win that the reverse is true.
 * I default to competing interps over reasonability, and will even tend to evaluate theory under CI unless you’re winning the debate and convince me to use reasonability and give me a good brightline.
 * Read whatever voters you want, I don’t care, but actually explain them, no matter what they are.
 * Don’t read a new shell in the 2AR unless something truly ridiculous and unprecedented went down in the 2NR. If you do read new 2AR theory, I’ll be reluctant to vote on it unless it’s really bad abuse in the 2NR and your shell is concise. In other words, I’ll vote for frivolous theory unless it’s a new shell in the 2AR, that’s a waste of everyone’s time.
 * Default to drop the debater on both theory and T, but I can be persuaded otherwise and have no problem voting on drop the arg if you win it.
 * Default to RVI’s with the conviction of that depends on the frivolousness of the shell, and I’ll be easily persuaded one way or another with a legit RVI debate.
 * I don’t really have a default between fairness and education, depends on the shell and context.
 * On all these points about defaults, please actually debate these bits of theory, they’re actually important and key to a good theory debate. If you just read a script of RVI/no RVI or CI/Reasonability for 4 speeches and don’t engage that’ll disappoint me.

I’m not a huge fan of K’s, which I get is bad and probably offensive for lots of people, but if you’re one of those people it’s not because I hate you or what you stand for, just don’t pref me high. Like I said before, I’ll listen to K’s but just won’t be very happy listening to them. If you decide to read a K, you had better:
 * K’s/Micropol:**
 * Have a ROB/ROJ, even if it is just a traditional “vote for the better debater”.
 * Have a legitimate alt! I won’t vote for you if you don’t have an actual policy option as your alt. Don’t say “reject cap” or “reject whiteness” or “reject the aff”; if you want to do this, actually give me a real way we can minimize oppression or reject whiteness or respect the other. In other words, if you’re reading a K and are going to be fighting for educational-type arguments, there better be some actual impacts. Reject alts don’t get you this.
 * Keep it simple and clear; I’m not well versed in K stuff, so explain everything to me and have real impacts please.
 * Tell me why the K comes before theory if that debate arises, I’ll default to theory before the K unless you win the other way around.
 * On the subject of micropol: I was put in a few uncomfortable situations as a debater where I genuinely did not know what to do given my expectation that I was playing a game and the apparently different view of my opponent. If you read micropol on everybody you debate as a strategy to win, I’d advise you change your strat or pref me low. I think of debate as a game but micropol can bring up very uncomfortable situations in that game where your opponent probably agrees with you but by the nature of debate is forced to disagree with you.


 * LARP:**

I ran a lot of extinction scenarios/DA’s/CP’s and like these args. Try to make sure that the DA isn’t super far-fetched, but as long as you have legit evidence and a good link chain I’ll abide it. Same applies for CP’s and plans with util impacts. Weigh! Weigh your impacts! Weigh a lot! Weigh!

If you read the kind of thing that falls under this umbrella then you know it. This includes Kant, Ripstein, and any other stuff like that, but I’m also thinking of D&G. If you’re planning on reading D&G, don’t. That’s the one thing I really will be annoyed about if I hear it, I really just don’t like it. Sorry, don’t pref me high. Aside from D&G though, I’m definitely not the judge for phil stuff, not only because I don’t like it and think it tends to get away from the actual policy-relevant topic but also because I will not understand it unless you pretend I’m a 1st grader. That’s not worth your time; it’ll take you the entire AC to get me to understand and vote on some very basic Kant stuff, at which point you’ll have no time to talk about the topic, which will probably make me mad and want to drop you even more. So probably don’t read Kant.
 * Dense Philosophy:**