Carroll,+Jamie

Jamie Carroll (debated for MBA and Wake Forest, have coached all of the above plus UGA at one time or another)

If you are reading this quickly before the round or pref sheet is due, the short version is that I will vote for the team that technically defeats the other, regardless of the arguments involved, and I’m much more friendly to topic-specific critical arguments, on the aff and the neg, than you would guess from how I debated. I guess I fall a little bit more into the line-by-line as opposed to big picture type judge-if it's dropped, I tend to think that argument is true. Plus, Brad Hall says most of the things I think in his philosophy in a more articulate manner than I can manage. Most of the stuff I say below is really just my leanings, if you out-tech the other team I can vote the other way, but I remember wanting to know all this stuff about judges when I was a debater, so I suppose it's useful information.

I have done a little bit of corn/ethanol work. I've only judged two rounds on this topic-one of them came down to Aspec, the other was politics vs. case. I read way too many libertarian blogs so I know some stuff about subsidies from that perspective, but please don't assume I know the abbreviations that everyone else has known for months on this topic. Also, the fact that I have only judged two debates in the last 19 months means that my comprehension of the speedsters has rapidly deteriorated. If you are super-fast, please at least start speaking more slowly than you otherwise would when I judge you. I have found that it takes me some time to get used to the voices of the fast people.

Topicality: If you are not going to advocate topical federal government action, then you better massively out-execute the other team on framework (or alternatively, don't put me higher than a 4-I will vote aff on this, but I haven't yet witnessed a beatdown nearly bad enough to justify it). I think reasonability is key for the aff to assert, but the if the neg devotes enough time to explaining why the aff is unreasonable/winning offense-defense then they should be fine. I don't really know much about the T-specific stuff on this topic. As you might guess from above, I will (reluctantly) vote on Aspec if the Aff doesn't answer in cx, but I really don't want to. Tell me that agent cps are bad and the neg should have a topic specific strat by the NDT and I will believe.

Counterplans: I lean towards thinking utopian fiat (uniform 50 states, anarchy, world gov, etc.) and consultation counterplans are illegitimate, and remain suspicious of agent counterplans. It seems obvious to me that plan inclusive counterplans that compete functionally by excluding certain parts of the plan are legitimate. Conditionality is probably fine if there is only one counterplan-it may get questionable if there is more than one advocacy besides the status quo. Rejecting the argument not the team seems like the logical impact to most theory arguments, but you have to at least say this for my bias to work in your favor. I don't really understand why textual competition is important, but I am open to be educated on this.

Disads: These are cool. Offense-defense isn’t really my thing, but if you’re winning it, I’ll vote on it. Common sense analytical arguments help you everywhere on the flow, but especially here for the Aff against politics DAs, other contrived stuff, etc.

Kritiks: If your kritik is specific to the Aff, and I don’t mean you have a card that talks about ag stuff, but rather you have K cards basically referring to the Aff plan, the way that Branson and Shalmon used to, then you can pref me pretty highly. If you plan to roll with a generic kritik that has nothing to do with the specifics of the Aff plan, then you probably want someone else in the back of the room. If you have nothing else but the generic K, then you can still win, especially if you can get them to drop alt solves the case, no value to life, no fiat, therefore no aff case, or any of the other one hit wonders then I will sign my ballot real fast. If all other things are equal, I might decide that the concrete benefits of helping people outweigh an abstract critical impact. Maybe not, depends on how well you explain it. In high school debates, I vote all the time for generic Ks when one team just rolls the other one (even when the 2ar goes for framework). In college, I think my reputation deters people from trying this kinda stuff, but it's been a while since I debated, so hopefully teams won't be afraid to go for a K in front of me when they're winning it.

Speaks: the more specific, well thought out your strategy is, the better your speaks will be. This is where I will punish dumb strats and reward good ones, probably here more than my ballot. Of course eloquence, techne, all that other stuff comes into play here too. I try to stay within the 27.5-28.5 norms. If you get something from me higher than that, it means you were particularly awesome-if lower, particularly awful.

Enjoy your time in debate. It will end all too quickly (insert Lundeen joke here) and you'll miss the people of the community more than anything else.