Carroll,+Joe

Dowling Catholic High School – 2008-2012 (Energy, Social Services, Military Withdrawal, and Space Topics)

Loyola University Chicago – 2012-2013 NPTE Parliamentary Debate

If you need to get ahold of me, email me at jcarroll32@gmail.com

I’ve judged about 10 rounds on the Infrastructure topic so far.
 * Judging Experience**

I tend to lean tech over truth. If it’s dropped, I’ll consider it a true argument. That being said, if you extend a dropped argument and then try to morph it into something else, I’ll be more sympathetic to new responses from the other team.
 * Tech>Truth**

I prefer standard policy positions to kritiks, but I’m more than willing to vote on any positions you win if you can articulate the way for me to evaluate the round. I prefer a good counterplan/disad debate, and that will be easier for me to evaluate at the end of the round. That should only dissuade you from going for something else if you think the debate is too close and you don't want to risk it. If you’re advocating a position trying to change debate, you might have some problems. I think debate is a game designed to see victory, not truth. You’re welcome to try and change the community from within the debate round, but you’ll have a difficult time in front of me because it’s a bit harder for me to evaluate that argument. I’ll do my best.
 * Argument Preference**

I flow competently, so speed is fine, but clarity is equally important. Please, stick to the roadmap as much as possible.
 * Flow/Delivery**

I default to offense-defense evaluation of the round, but you can argue for other ways for me to view the round.
 * Round Evaluation**

Dropped theory __with__ a voting issue articulated is almost always game over for the team that dropped it. I say almost because this isn’t as true for permutations, especially permutations on the K that sever discourse or representations.
 * Theory/Voting Issues**

I tend to err neg on questions of counterplan theory. On the other hand, I think delay counterplans and consult counterplans are somewhat abusive, but the neg won’t be dropped just because they read one.

I think conditionality is one of the few actually abusive things done in debate. I’ll try to vote for whomever did the best theory debating, but the negative should be aware that they’re fighting a bit of an uphill battle. When the neg says “dispositional”, I assume that means they can kick it if the aff puts defense, like a permutation, on it, unless the negative clarifies otherwise. Also, I think No Solvency arguments on the counterplan are offense, not defense. They essentially function as disads to the counterplan, so please don’t think you can kick it if the aff makes that argument.

For paperless teams, I will stop the timer when you tell me that you’re done writing or assembling your speech. After that, you need to be expedient about getting the flash drive to whatever computers need it. Please, be expedient about this. When that’s happened, get ready to grab your flows, give the roadmap, and deliver your speech. Also, when prep time has stopped, everyone in the room needs to stop prepping. Stop writing things, and don’t talk to your partner about the debate. I probably won’t dock you speaker points for talking too long to flash a speech, but I will if you steal prep.
 * Prep Time**

These things are good for your speaks:
 * Speaker Points**
 * Being clear when speaking.
 * Being polite. There’s a way to be assertive without being a jerk.
 * Humor
 * Being organized with speeches. Please, stick to your roadmap.
 * Useful overviews with a clear, cohesive vision of the round. Ideally, I could just use your overview in the last speech as the RFD on my ballot.

These things are bad:
 * Stealing prep time (see above)
 * Asserting that the other team dropped an argument that was not actually dropped.
 * Being especially rude with your language, especially using sexist, racist, or other offensive remarks. Debate should have a collegial atmosphere.
 * Lying about an argument you did or did not make or how you read a card.
 * Feeding your partner their speech.

I did policy debate for Dowling Catholic in Des Moines for four years traveling to national circuit bid tournaments and local tournaments alike. I’ve debated against most types of positions, from straight-up policy to kritiks to narratives and performances. The way I judge is most like the way I debated in high school. I debated first and last positions for each side at some point for at least one season in high school, but most of my experience was with the 1A and 2N speeches. We normally ran Policy affirmatives, and I normally went for a counterplan and disad (especially politics) or case and a disad, but I’ve also gone for K’s, theory, and Topicality.
 * Debate Background**: