Jamie Carroll -- Georgia State

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

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. Plus, Brad Hall says most of the things I think in his philosophy in a more articulate manner than I can manage.

I have only done work on one area of the topic, Casey, and I have only seen one topical version of that aff on the UNI and Gonzaga caselists.

Topicality: If you are not going to advocate topical federal government action, then you better massively out-execute the other team on framework. 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 lean towards thinking the aff has to overrule the main holding in the case, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Counterplans: I lean towards thinking utopian fiat (uniform 50 states, anarchy, world gov, etc.) and consultation counterplans are illegitimate, and remain ambivalent about agent counterplans. It seems obvious to me that 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. Textual competition doesn’t make any sense to me as a theory of competitiveness. I take textual flaws in counterplans more seriously than most other judges.

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-for example, I think you can win politics doesn’t link to the courts without using cards.

Kritiks: If your kritik is specific to the Aff, and I don’t mean you have a card that talks about legal stuff, but rather you have K cards basically referring to the Aff plan, the way that Branson and Shalmon used to, then I will probably be a hack for you. 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 really need to roll with the generic K, then you can still win with me in the back of the room- 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.

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.

Enjoy your time in debate. It will end all too quickly (well, maybe not if you’re Geoff Lundeen) and you'll miss the people of the community more than anything else.

Seasonal voting record:

Tourney Div Rd AFF NEG Decision
GSU Open 1 Emory Bontha 27.9 Panday 28 Oklhma Baez 27.5 Strachan-Lafon 27.4 AFF
GSU Open 2 UMW Pacheco 28.4 Susko 28.3 Harvard Karlson 28.5 Tandet 28.6 NEG
GSU Open 3 Kentuc Robinson 27.7 Sweet 27.2 Harvard Ramanujan 27.4 Zhao 27.8 NEG
GSU Open 4 GTown Bhushan 29 Hochberg 28.3 Samfor Bagwell 29.1 Lewis 28.4 NEG

Tourney	Div	Rd	AFF					NEG					Decision
GSU	Open	1	Emory	Bontha	27.9	Panday	28	Oklhma	Baez	27.5	Strachan-Lafon	27.4	AFF
GSU	Open	2	UMW	Pacheco	28.4	Susko	28.3	Harvard	Karlson	28.5	Tandet	28.6	NEG
GSU	Open	3	Kentuc	Robinson	27.7	Sweet	27.2	Harvard	Ramanujan	27.4	Zhao	27.8	NEG
GSU	Open	4	GTown	Bhushan	29	Hochberg	28.3	Samfor	Bagwell	29.1	Lewis	28.4	NEG

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format:

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. Plus, Brad Hall says most of the things I think in his philosophy in a more articulate manner than I can manage. I have only done work on one area of the topic, Casey, and I have only seen one topical version of that aff on the UNI and Gonzaga caselists. Topicality: If you are not going to advocate topical federal government action, then you better massively out-execute the other team on framework. 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 lean towards thinking the aff has to overrule the main holding in the case, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Counterplans: I lean towards thinking utopian fiat (uniform 50 states, anarchy, world gov, etc.) and consultation counterplans are illegitimate, and remain ambivalent about agent counterplans. It seems obvious to me that 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. Textual competition doesn’t make any sense to me as a theory of competitiveness. I take textual flaws in counterplans more seriously than most other judges. 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-for example, I think you can win politics doesn’t link to the courts without using cards. Kritiks: If your kritik is specific to the Aff, and I don’t mean you have a card that talks about legal stuff, but rather you have K cards basically referring to the Aff plan, the way that Branson and Shalmon used to, then I will probably be a hack for you. 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 really need to roll with the generic K, then you can still win with me in the back of the room- 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. 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. Enjoy your time in debate. It will end all too quickly (well, maybe not if you’re Geoff Lundeen) and you'll miss the people of the community more than anything else.