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).

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

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

Experience:

MS/HS-Crossings: Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water, and NATO

College-OU: Nukes

Coaching: Assistant Coach at Crossings (23-)

Coaches: Kaine Cherry, Jared Demunbrun, Gabby Knight, Dennis Savill, and Lindsey Shook

Email (please include me):

bycxdebate@gmail.com

General notes about me and my ideas:

do what you do best

traditional policy stuff is good - generics exist for a reason - obviously, specificity is better but making the topic generic cp/da work against a core of the topic aff will also make me happy - the way to win these debates is contextualization - if the link is just to the generic topic mechanism without mentioning the aff once I'll be sad

theory is something people need to remember how to do as it's a lost art - do it well and you'll make me very very happy

kritiks that make sense and are well applied to the aff make me happy - kritiks that are generic, generally unspecific, and noncontextualized make me sad - don't be afraid to defend things with the k either - people oftentimes get too floaty and wishy-washy - some k's are just bad though just like some cps and das are bad lol

counterplans and disads can be awesome - see above - but they can also reek to high hell - try to make sure the thing you're reading is competitive, makes some level of cogent sense, and isn't the most contrived idea I've ever heard of

topicality is good and people should go for it - t shouldn't be weaponized against one side of the aisle exclusively but instead should be a strategy that can be deployed in every 1nc - even if that thing is a core of the topic aff that every camp ever cut if you make a t interp that excludes it then feel free to go for it but just be willing to defend it because its probably an asinine interp

k teams should prioritize beating the tva and switch sides debate - that is the key piece of negative defense that takes out most of your offense - dropping it is almost always a death sentence

case neg is also a lost art and the best negative strategies include large amounts of case neg and quality case debating

Oklahoma LD/PF (everything above is for CX):

again do what you do best but just because I'm a policy bro doesn't mean you auto-win if you say something progressive in front of me - if you're better at doing the typical and traditional stuff then do it and win it - obviously, try new things out but just don't expect it to be an auto win

people also seem to have forgotten about offense/defense and impact calculus - p.t.m. is a good thing people and so is doing turns analysis

similar to what I said above but people have seemingly forgotten what solvency is too - make smart solvency arguments and win that that implicates solvency - if someone defends substantial is 25% and reads a US imperialism aff then a smart neg that says "lol that means 75% of the US is still there how does that hurt imperialism" would be reading my mind