email chain/email for comments: drewgartner1@gmail.com

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: My comfortability with full mega-speed has lowered, especially in the realm of analytics. I would like your analytics to be slower, so I can really get it all down. Taking a few year break from debate really impacted my full spread comprehension.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

I'm currently a Senior at Iowa City West. I do LD Debate, the top paradigm is LD, scroll down for other events.

I want to be on the email chain: sptho24@icstudents.org

I want to think that I will be as objective as possible in round, but here are some arguments I know better than others. That being said, I'll vote on anything if it is won, with only very few exceptions.

CX is binding and I don't flow it, but I'll pay attention

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

EXTEND PLEASE

Shortcut (this is just my familiarity with styles, not what I will and won't vote for):

Trix - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 1

K's - 2

LARP - 2

Non-T K affs - 2

Performance K - 3

K V K - 2/3

--------------------------------------------

Defaults:

Metatheory > Theory = T > K

Truth Testing

Presumption and Permissibility negate

Theory Voters : DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, Competing Interps, No RVIs (Don't make me use these please)

Note: This is just my defaults, this changes the second someone reads literally any weighing on these things

-----------------------------------------------

Note for Novices: I don't care what you run. I do want you to understand it, otherwise I won't be happy. But I will vote on tricks, K's, theory, whatever. If you are reading stuff clearly just handed to you and you don't understand it, I won't be happy and your speaks will drop. But I will still vote on it.

-----------------------------------------------

Tricks -

I'm a tricks debater, so go for it man. I think they are fun. I don't love being super sketchy in CX, you don't have to tell them every implication, but like, answer their questions truthfully. I'll boost speaks if you give a new trick I haven't seen (i.e you read a new paradox and you do understand it). The only tricks I WON'T evaluate are "eval after X" I will evaluate the whole round, I think this leads to a paradox of regression, and it's stupid. I do enjoy if you understand what you are reading. And extensions are great, please extend. Also keep in mind, the dumber the trick the lower the threshold obviously, and have warrants please.

--------------------------------------------

Phil -

I love a good phil round. I'm comfortable with most frameworks, if you're reading some really out there stuff, just explain. Frameworks I know: Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Contracts, Libertarianism, Polls, Ripstein. (Probably more I just can't think of them). Love engaging in frameworks, and hijacks are wonderful. The main thing is explain your framework. I'm also cool if you have hidden skep triggers, but if asked in CX for them, please give them, if you try to go for one you didn't give when asked I will still evaluate it, but your speaks will drop a lot, and I am going to be easily persuaded for new responses against them if you do it. Basically, don't be shifty and don't lie.

--------------------------------------------

Theory -

I'm good for theory. No matter how frivolous. Obviously the dumber the shell the lower threshold of responses. Defaults: DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, C/I, No RVIs. DON'T MAKE ME DEFAULT PLEASE!!!!! If you read like 26 shells in the AC your speaks will drop (note I'll still vote on it though). I'll vote on disclosure (begrudgingly). And again, I literally don't care if it's frivolous, you win the shell you win the shell. I'm not gonna gut check unless that ends up being how it is said I have to evaluate it. Also reasonability NEEDS a brightline.

--------------------------------------------

LARP -

I'm not a larper, keep that in mind. But it's not that complicated, and I can judge it. I think it's probably the most educational for the real world, but I also think they are kinda boring. I'm cool with CPs, PICs, DAs, Plans, whatever. WEIGH. Without weighing I can't decide which impact is worse and I might default to presumption or permissibility. I'm not joking, I'm not really gonna weigh for you.

I don't know what judge kick is and to me it sounds like intervention.

Must say you're kicking something if you kick it. Not extending isn't the same as kicking

--------------------------------------------

Speed -

I can handle some speed. But as a debater I found LARPers tend to approach light speed sometimes, and so if that's you. Know if I can't understand what you say I won't flow it. I try not to flow of the doc all the time, and I'd love to not have to.

--------------------------------------------

K's -

I'm cool with stock K's (Cap, Set Col, etc).

I can do High Theory (Nieztche, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) But EXPLAIN YOUR K. I literally am not qualified at all to judge a K round without you explaining it.

K-Affs - I can judge these, didn't run them very often, but I can judge them, just explain your K and why you aren't Topical if you aren't being Topical.

K v K - I'll try, but know I'm probably not the best judge for this. I'll do my best. But I NEED a lot of instruction for this. Also how hard this is for me to evaluate depends heavily on the K's that are clashing, ie Cap K V Set Col K will be easier to evaluate than Psychoanalysis V Baudrillard.

Performance K's - I'll again try, super unexperienced with this. I need a LOT of explaining as to why your K matters, is good, and why the performance is key to the K. Again, probably better strats than this

If you kick an alt, you gotta say you kick it. Not extending isn't sufficient

Floating PIKs must be hinted at in the 1n

--------------------------------------------

Postrounding -

I'm ok with it, but I'm also a person, so don't please don't get too aggressive or anything. But please, if you think I robbed you of a win, please postround me. I think this is a good norm. However, I also reserve the right to leave if I don't feel comfortable with the post rounding.

--------------------------------------------

OTHER EVENTS

Policy

I have no clue how your event works, and I'm kinda scared to ask. I don't know your lingo, and I don't know the norms, I can't do top policy speed, please be a little slower - To be clear, I'm fine with spreading, but like more of an 8/10, keep in mind my LD background, if you make a round similar to that, I'll be really happy and your speaks might rise a little. Besides that, most of the stuff from LD applies, but like, I'll need even more judge instruction than usual. I know literally nothing about your topic or what any of the things you are talking about are. Explain what your plans and counterplans are and what they do. Otherwise it'll be hard for me to vote on it. Check the LARP section for more specifics, all that stuff applies here.

--------------------------------------------

PF

I'll treat this as basically a trad LD round, because I feel that's the best way for me to judge it. I'll do my best way to judge as I can, but do know that my LD background is a thing. NOTE: This DOES NOT mean I'm cool with circuit arguments in this style, I know that they aren't cool in PF, and running them will NOT make me happy. Judge instruct as you can, I'll do my best

--------------------------------------------

Misc

1) Please extend

2) I don't flow author names, say where you are

3) Signpost for the love of the GCB

4) If you tastefully roast an ICW varsity in LD I'll boost speaks by like +.2

If you roast ICW Quincy Tate it's like +.3

If you prove monism is true and have the line "Monism is true - I am Joe Rankin" that's like +.1 - +.3

5) Have fun, debates a game and if we aren't having fun why do we do this?