Vande+Kamp,+Garrett

"The basic rule I try to abide by is that I can be persuaded to vote on any argument, and that teams are best left to “doing their own thing” in front of me. I have several pre-dispositions and biases, but generally teams are best left to trying to execute the strategies they are most comfortable with and modify them to my expectations and standards, rather than start wholesale." - Ryan Galloway

My name is Garrett, and I am a former varsity debater at Airline High School and Samford University. I have judged two TOC bid rounds in policy, but that was a few years ago. When I was a debater, I mainly used policy arguments, theory, and kritiks, with some framework when I was negative. I left the community to pursue a PhD in political science, and I only come back when I'm asked to volunteer to judge some rounds. My role model for judging is Ryan Galloway, a well-respected member of the NDT community, but I do have my own nuances for judging that are stated here. This is my judge philosophy.

Case/Disads/Counterplans: Yes, yes, and yes. I love to hear intense battles on these issues. I'm not familiar with the acronyms developed for the current topic, so make the first constructive tags clear. But I won't be lost on your impact calculus debates, and I love debaters who make nuanced, effective arguments on all the policy positions.

Kritiks: I have grown to love kritiks. I value that they can level the playing field in small squad vs. big squad debates. I especially love kritiks specific to the topic. I will admit, however, I still do not understand some criticisms, like Lacan, so your explanations of theoretical underpinnings of your criticism need to be crystal clear. I do know how you lose to a K, however, so you shouldn't fear. I don't have a preordained stance on reps in round or the role of the ballot, so you are going to have to sell well for me not to evaluate the plans' implications.

Topicality: I tend to lean reasonability for the aff. I will pull the trigger on T if you can prove abuse (they spiked out of our disad) or provide nuanced definitions for terms unique to the current resolution. T is an all or nothing position for the neg: don't extend it for only 2 minutes in the block.

Theory: I encourage theory debates on specific arguments that you really believe are abusive. Likewise, I can see through your timesucks and don't think they contribute much to debate. I tend to lean towards conditions, consult, and policy-specific PIC's are bad, but the Aff's execution of theory debate must be higher than what I've seen from high-schoolers (my former self included). 1 conditional argument probably isn't bad, and 4 conditional arguments probably isn't good, but the better debaters on theory can win on rather sketchy theory claims.

Project/Performance: I'm willing to listen to your personal stories, but I would do a disservice to everyone if I did not mention that I have reservations about spurning the topic and personalizing debate. We run into some serious risks of race-to-the-bottom in terms of oppression stories when we personalize debate, and there is a chance that such strategies will be hijacked by the privileged when we allow them. If you are on neg, however, do whatever you want; your mission is to negate the affirmative by any means necessary.

FYI: I think that switch-side debate that is predictable and accessible to both teams is the best form of education. I don't think a single debate can change anything structurally in the debate community. I think change in the community best happens from building alliances, not divisiveness.