Garrett Baumert

two Rs, two Ts

Crossings Christian ‘22

www.twitch.tv/garebeargame (+.1 speaks if you follow, +1 whole speak if you use your prime sub [I don’t want your Tier 1, don’t spend money for speaks]) /j

Add me to the email chain: gbaumertcxdebate@gmail.com

Qualifications: My son, Edge, is doing this activity, and I am excited to see what it is all about!

I'm colorblind and need the words you are reading to be bolded instead of highlighted.

Last Updated: 4/15/21

Short Version:

Top-level: I view my role as a judge as that of a policy maker, and as such I expect you to treat me like one. You are the lobbyists and I expect you to shower me with gifts until I vote in your favor.

DAs: Honestly not a huge fan. I don’t think many debaters have really engaged with the in-depth literature that it takes to truly understand highly-nuanced, topic-intrinsic disadvantages like “federalism” or “spending”. Politics disadvantages are silly, and if you run one I will not only vote against you but also dock you, your opponents, and the rest of your team anytime I judge them 1.37 speaker points. Love floortime scenarios though.

CPs: If it is not explicitly written out in your 1NC how your counter plan differs from the affirmative and avoids the disadvantage, then I will automatically assume that it is plan-plus and lacking a net benefit. I honestly might do this even if you do specify - we’ll see how I feel.

Ks: I don’t understand how this is different from a disadvantage. People have tried explaining it to me, but I still cannot understand. If you successfully get me to understand the difference, I will vote you and your children up with 30 speaks until the day I (or you) die (whichever comes first ;) (unless you run politics obviously).

Toopicality: I love topicality and honestly don’t understand why people don’t go for it more. My philosophy: if you ain’t whole res, you ain’t dole pez. However, if I evaluate the affirmative to be topical after the 1AC, and you still have the nerve to try to run T, it will be an instant affirmative ballot with 24 speaks for the neg.

Case Debate: I have never and will never consider this in my ballot.

Debaters who have inspired me: Jonah Jacob’s, Garrett Hunt, Garrett Baumert, Samuel L. Jackson, Shia LaBeouf, Kristen Wiig, Martha Washington, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Scooby Doo, Cave Johnson, Agent 47

Long Version:

I’d honestly consider myself to be pretty considerate of most policy arguments. Tech > truth. I’m good for any policy-esque Ks (cap, security, topic-specifics, etc.) but I have a high threshold of explanation for anything else. Everything in the short version is a joke, and I will not boost speaks for subscribing (though it is appreciated).

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

debated 4 years at Moore High School (oklahoma). was in state out rounds a few times, doing progressive (fast, Ks cool) CX.

CX:

tech>truth, with some obvious exceptions -- if i can't explain your argument to the other team in the rfd, i'm probably not going to vote on it even if it goes dropped. likewise, i'd never vote on a downright offensive arg even if it's dropped

i like to think of myself as tab rasa. read whatever you want. if the last rebuttal gives me a decent reason to vote on it, i'll vote on it. Ks are fine. K affs are also fine. T/FW is just as fine.

i've got a technical understanding of K debate, but don't expect me to know a lot about your lit. idrk how performance debates work (no experience with them), but i'm willing to vote for them. K aff vs K neg is a similar situation - not what i understand best, but a winnable debate if it’s explained well

condo's generally fine. i'll vote for any theory that you win. if you want to win theory, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 2AR (most likely, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 1AR as well, in order to make it convincing that you really got cheated so hard the other team needs to lose). if you think at any point in the debate that you may go for the theory you read in the 2AC, slow down on it. i will not vote for standards that i didn't hear in the 2AC, even if the rebuttals are so eloquent and convincing that the magnitude of the other team's cheating makes me sob out of sympathy for you.

"they drop it" IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPLAINING YOUR ARGUMENT.

weird but sometimes important - i almost never catch author names on cards, so if you frequently refer to your ev by its author, i might get kinda lost. i can figure out what ev you’re talking about in the rebuttals if you preface the author name w the warrants tho

i default to offense-defense. it is exceedingly difficult to win zero-risk to me (unless it’s a politics DA with an especially shady link chain)

PF:

i have some experience with pf on one of the most lay circuits in the country. i will judge based off the flow, and my rfd will probably sound like a policy rfd. see my cx paradigm for more specific notes. i'm a bit more lenient on things like tech vs. truth and how much work you'll have to do to extend a dropped argument due to shorter time limits.

generally speaking, i don't think that pf should include spreading - if both teams want to spread, that's fine though

the neg doesn't get an advocacy. not sure if that's a thing in pf anywhere, but it wasn't in oklahoma and it's not in front of me. if the res is one of those stupid "on balance" ones or policy A vs. policy B, i guess the neg gets whichever advocacy the aff doesn't get.

LD:

i have no experience with high school LD other than judging a few novice rounds. spread if you want, explain any arguments that only LDers make like i have no idea what you're talking about, and you'll be alright.

my first impression is that the neg gets at least 1 advocacy in LD. i'm open to having my mind changed in any round with a decent theory debate. have fun.

Hi! I’m an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.

I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.

There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:

- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.

- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.

Things I like:

- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!

- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.

- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.

Things I dislike:

- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.

- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.

- Ks without alts.

- Wipeout

- Eugenics good

Last updated 9/28/2023

Pronouns are he/him, they/them is also fine.

Email: lsmithspeechdebate@gmail.com

History:

Debated at Moore High School for 4 years

Currently a third year debater at UCO that has debated at the NDT and made it to Double-Octos of CEDA.

tldr: I have experience in both K and policy debates on both the aff and the neg as well as experience as all speaker positions. Read whatever you want in front of me. General overall note, I am a "draw lines" type of judge. If the 2nr/2ar has a bunch of args that weren't in the block or 1ar I'm going to have a really hard time evaluating the round.

General stuff:

Speed speed is fine, just make sure you're clear. If you're not clear I will say clear, if that happens more then once/frequently it will be reflected in speaker points.

Prep: I don't count flashing as prep, but I suspect someone is stealing prep when flashing I'll ask if I need to start rolling prep again and if it continues I'll start rolling prep again. Don't steal prep.

Arg specific stuff:

DA's: Make sure the DA has a clear link and generally up to date UQ. For answering DA's if going for the link turn a warrant for why the link turns o/w the link makes my decision a lot easier.

T/FW:For me to vote neg on T/fw I need a clear interp extended in the 2nr, alongside definitions if needed for the interp. I will not do that work for you, if you don't extend your definitions in the 2nr then I probably will default to not knowing what the interp means at the end of the debate. Explain the violation and why the CI doesn't solve the reasons to prefer and explain what type of affs the CI allows and why that's bad. I need to have a clear understand of the neg/aff debate models and why I need to care about the particularities of said model at the end of the last rebuttals//why the negs model is uniquely bad and why I have to care about that if just impact turning fw.

CP's: Make sure to explain how the CP solves the aff, why the perm can't solve and the nb to the cp.

theory: I'm definitely much more truth over tech in terms of the way I think about debate. With that being said I need a clear impact to theory and why that outweighs the case to make me vote on it. Nonetheless I'll vote on theory and evaluate it like I would any other arg, but this is def not my area of expertise.

K's: I love K v K debates and K debate in general. With that said, I'm most familiar with the lit areas of settler colonialism, disability studies, the cap K, and I know the bases of some queer theory and anti-blackness lit. This means when explaining the K I will most likely understand the lit to some degree, but if your reading more high theory args like Baudrillard I may need slightly more explanation than your typical blocks. In order to vote neg I need to know how the links turn the case, how the alt solves the links or how the alt solves the case and how the alt solves the links. For affs, reasons why the link turns o/w the link, how the perm functions if going to the perm, why the alt fails//why the alt can't solve the aff.