Hartmann,+Jamie

Jamie Hartmann
Background - I debated at GBS and the University of Kentucky. I worked at the Michigan institute last summer and have judged at 3 tournaments this year.

Topicality: I tend to prefer the argument that it is question of competing interpretations, but that can be won or lost during the debate. It is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issueâ€¦if you think that the reverse T voting issue is good argument you probably shouldn't be at the TOC. Be clear when your reading T args, if you actually want me to flow it. I am also a big fan of a well explained grammar standard¦ oh yea

Kritiks: If you know me at all, you know I'm not really a K guy. That said, I ran them in high school and I've certainly voted for them as a judge. This is usually because teams don't answer them well. The most important part is debating out the impacts and alternative. Whoever wins those usually wins the round. Impact turns are always encouraged. Language Kâ€™s can usually be dealt with by apologizing.

Theory: I tend to favor the negative on theory, so it's an uphill battle to win PICs or Conditionality. That said, you gotta do what you gotta do. I also think Consult cps are legitimate

Disads / Counterplans: This is my bread and butter. I love a good DA and CP debate.

Other - “ I hate really stupid arguments, and at a certain point I just won't vote for them (ie TimeCube). I enjoy Hegemony, Consulting NATO, and impact turning kritiks. Malthus, anyone? I am rarely offended. Good luck.