Tabroom.com

The NaviGator at Northstar

2023 — Lincoln, NE/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Matthew Gruhn Lincoln Southeast High School

Last changed on Wed January 25, 2023 at 3:50 AM CDT

If you are ever sharing a speech doc, I want it please.

TLDR: I have more experience with trad arguments. This does not mean I don't like arguments on the progressive debate circuit, this means that I know traditional arguments better and you will have to do less work as a debater to win these in front of me. I'll listen to anything. Just make your arguments clear, concise, and well warranted and tell me why you should win the round.

My name is Matt Gruhn, feel free to refer to me with any pronouns, I don't believe in the societal construct of gender. I was a debater at Lincoln Southeast High School for 4 years. I started my career being coached in LD by a judge who had only done one year of congress before coaching, and ended with a coach who won the NFA-LD national championship debate, so I've seen it all.

In terms of before the round:

Please disclose. There's a lot up in the air about theory on disclosing, and I'll evaluate the argument wherever it is argued best in round. But please. Disclose.

If you have potentially triggering content PLEASE READ A TRIGGER WARNING. A warning is not "oh I'm going to be reading this, so be ready." A warning is "here is what I'm reading, it involves subjects of _____. Will this still be a safe round for everyone else if I read this?" Also, if you have potentially triggering content, both you and your opponent reserve the right to pause the round and take a minute if necessary. Debate should be a safe space for all involved.

If you do not have your pronouns displayed pre-round on tabroom, please disclose them (if you are comfortable). If you are not comfortable, you can request to be identified in any way you choose. Everyone deserves to be identified in the way they choose! Same goes for if your pronouns have changed since you've posted them, I want to make the space the safest it can be so we can focus on the debate.

General things: I debated mostly traditional LD for 4 years, with a brief dance in Policy debate. That being said, argue whatever you want so long as you can tell me why it matters. Traditional cases are going to be more beneficial for you because it takes less work to get me to understand as a judge, but this is your activity and you deserve to run what you think is fun and engages you best. I judge off of the flow first and foremost, so signposting is your best friend. If you are going to make an argument, you need to have a warrant. If you make an unwarranted claim, and your opponent responds with an unwarranted claim, the argument becomes a wash and I won't evaluate it. All in all, just make arguments as clear as possible and like I said previously traditional arguments are your best friend with me as a judge.

Speed: Go as fast as you think I will be able to follow you. If there's a speech doc involved I can probably follow a little bit faster, but it's up to you to decide what's best. That being said, if you ever egregiously use your speed to exclude your opponents in round, do not expect any higher than 26 speaks. Debate is an activity about education, make sure everyone can be involved. (An example of this is if you completely spread a first year novice out of a round as a varsity debater. It's not cool or edgy it just makes you look rude tbh) That being said, make sure you are super clear on tag lines, author names, and WARRANTS.

Topicality/T: I personally like debating the topic. But the great thing about being a judge is what I like to do doesn't matter at all. Debate whatever you want and convince me why your metric is better. That being said it's going to be very hard to convince me as a judge that in-round solvency exists. I'll listen to the argument and I'll give it as much weight as anything else, but it's important for y'all to know that you're creating more work for yourself.

Respect: Respect your opponents. If you find yourself getting heated in round, please take a breath, or ask for a breath. If I feel a round is getting too hostile and you haven't asked for a short break, I may intervene and provide one regardless. I would much rather pause the round for a minute than escalate any sort of hostility. I get that it can get intense in debate rounds, but there is still a respect that needs to be maintained. Some things I won't tolerate:

1. Blatant disrespect for identity ie sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc.

2. Condescension, particularly towards Novice debaters

3. Any sort of language that is a personal attack against your opponent, in fact you shouldn't refer to your opponent unless you are saying "they said XYZ, I say ABC"

Basically just find the line between intensity and aggression. If I'm concerned I'll step in and offer a warning to debaters. If you fail to yield the warning, it may not stop the round but expect your speaks to be tanked.

Speaker points: I hate speaks. They're based on antiquated and ableist notions of speech patterns. Seriously I'm so up in the air about this that if you say "my opponent and I deserve 30s in this round bc xyz" I'll probably give it to you. Just do your best and don't focus on speaks imo.

Evidence: Read good evidence. Find compelling sources. One good, in-depth card always outweighs a million bad, generalized cards. That being said, unless you're in PF don't turn the entire debate into a which source is better bc xyz author. If there's an egregious violation go for it, but try to avoid it if not. If I see power tagging I'll call you out post round. If your opponent calls it out in round, and it's true, the evidence will not affect my judgement.

Presumption: Goes to squo, this can be aff or neg depending on the round so if you're going for presumption make sure you know which one you are.

Post-rounding: I don't think there's anything wrong with you telling me why the way I voted is incorrect. However, I never vote lightly or on a whim. If you would like to enter a separate debate about why I evaluated the round incorrectly, I'll do it. However, I will provide feedback to your opponent beforehand, and give them the opportunity to exit the space before we start our discussion. Side note: If your post rounding becomes hostile toward your opponent, I will end it immediately and speak to your coach. You can be as rude as you'd like toward me.

Specific things:

LD:

Trad cases: Love 'em. They can be funky and also fresh.

Standards: Single standards are fine imo, but if you want Value and VC that's cool too. Either clash or collapse. If your standards are essentially the same, collapse. If they aren't, use that! Tell me why your ethical system is better!

On the contention level, weigh impacts, warrant arguments, and tell me why I should vote for you. Y'all should write my RFD for me in round. Show me the pathway. Give voters. Give OVs if you want. Anything to help me as a judge.

K's: If you're going to read a K please know what the K is saying. It's already harder for me to understand K's so if you don't understand it either we're all just confused. With K's I prefer topicality, but like I said you can read whatever you want just tell me why it's better.

LARP: I used to read this sometimes, it's fun. Just do the same things that you would with any other argument. Make it clear why I should vote for you.

Theory: I think theory is a good thing. But please don't let the round devolve into a meaningless theory debate. If you read 4 theory shells and your opponent reads counter-theory and then you read counter-counter-theory I'll be really sad. Please don't make me sad :( Also theory is a voting issue and I'll treat it as such.

CP/PICs: Counterplans are great. PICs make me feel icky. Like I said you can run whatever you want but you'll have to work extra hard to win the theory debate here. I would recommend avoiding PICs with me as a judge, but it's up to you.

Phil: This stuff is dense and complex. You'll need to explain it well if you're gonna run it. (Side note if you run Camus in round I will personally print out your case and rip it up in front of you) ((I'm looking at you Ben Lampman)) (((I'll still evaluate the argument and you still have an equal chance of winning the round, but I'll hate myself doing it))).

Policy: I had a brief bout with policy, and pretty much the same thing I'm going to say anywhere else applies here.

Trad: Yes. Please. This is so much easier for me to follow.

K's: See LD. Just know you're going to have to work harder for me.

Theory: See LD.

PICs: See LD.

Phil: Phil? In policy? I'll allow it. But if it's confusing I'll cry. You don't want to see me cry.

PF: Have good sources and tell me why I should vote for you and we'll call it good. (Side note: I am not one of those judges where you have to throw in fluffy rhetoric like saying "I'm proud to affirm/negate" or other filler things which don't advance the debate a ton. In fact, I think instances like this waste precious seconds, especially in an event like this with shorter speech times).

Please keep track of your own prep time, and please be honest. If I find that you're stealing time, and your opponent calls you out, it could be an independent voting issue in the round. At the very least, your speaks will probably be tanked.

When you are extending arguments it should be "Extend: Author name, they say "XYZ" this is important because "ABC"". This will make it much easier as the judge to flow your speeches. If you do not use this format, and I end up missing something that you extended, that's just the way it'll go.

If you are asking a question in cross, you get one question. If you would like to ask for a follow up, you may, but it is the discretion of your opponents to provide that. If I see you stealing cross, you may have your speaks tanked.

Please don't ask the question "but what if I have this card" in cross. Present that in your speeches, and use cross to set this up. A more effective question is "if I can prove the opposite, do you gain offense" however, this is still a point that can be made in your speech.

Please please please please please please PLEASE slow down on author names, taglines, and warrants. At the very least, make sure you are enunciating your author names to the fullest extent so I know what I am flowing. This is a problem in every event but I find that speed-readers in PF are the most egregious violators.

If you're going to talk with your partner during speeches, please be quiet. Some of y'all are having regular conversations during speeches and it overstimulates my brain lol.

Congress: Please do not turn your speeches into dramatic monologues. I will give much more credence to a slightly weaker speech that doesn't use over the top rhetoric than a strong one that does. Also, CLASH. This is a debate event, so there should be debate involved! Reference what your colleagues are saying and tell me why your information is better! It is so much more entertaining for everyone involved!

All in all, please have fun and enjoy your time in debate. As long as you are not acting at the expense of anyone else, we'll get along peachy keen.

Angela Kwambamba Lincoln Southwest High School

Tony Le Lincoln Southwest High School

Preston McInelly Lincoln HS None

Madelyn Patterson Hire

Liam Singleton Millard South High School

Last changed on Tue June 14, 2022 at 2:56 PM EDT

I debated for Millard South for 3 years. I mainly debated in Congress, and went to several national circuit debates and went to NSDA Nationals for Congress. I also have experience on every form of debate. (PF, LD, Policy, and Congress.) Although I am most familiar with Congress, and PF.

This is my fourth year of judging and coaching debate.

Here is my email if you need to contact me: Liamsingleton007@gmail.com

General:

Please just be respectful to your peers. This is an activity that is meant to be fun. Don't be rude to people.

I understand people have different views, but it doesn't take that much effort to just be kind of people.

Also, please don't speak while your opponents are talking. (Mainly just asking/answering questions, or giving speeches.)

I understand for PF, and Policy. But Congress, it's especially rude.

On the topic of Anecdotal evidence. I personally like anecdotal evidence, but don't leave it by itself. If you want to link it to yourself, go for it. But give empirical evidence to support your claim so it doesn't sound like your a stand alone case. It will also make you sound more credible as a speaker.

On that, CLAIM < WARRANT < IMPACT. Every time you make a claim, give evidence to support your claim, and give the impact of your claim with your warrant. If you don't give a warrant, it makes it sound like a personal opinion.

Public Forum:

I will typically flow almost everything that I can. But you still need to explain all of your impacts to me in the Summary and Final Focus.

I do not time you, that is your job to keep track of.

I pay attention to a lot of things during the debate, and especially the little things. I don't normally like to use the word abusive, but if I notice that in questioning you're not allowing your opponents to ask questions. I will most likely address it, and take some speaker points off.

I will rarely deem things as inappropriate. Look at General Section.

On the topic of speed. I don't mind going at a moderately fast pace. But if you start spreading. I will just stop flowing.

If you want to spread, you must give your case to both me, and your opponents so ensure fairness. Vice versa for your opponents.

I will also typically expect you to take all of your time, both for your speeches and for your prep time. You have the time to make arguments, so make them. It will only help you.

Congress:

I am very knowledgeable about Congress. I know the rules, how a round should look, and how everyone should be acting.

Rehash is my least favorite part about Congress. Please do not rehash. (Rehash is saying the same argument as someone who had previously already said the same thing, and not adding anything new to the debate.) Now, on that. If you do have a point someone has said before, but new information they didn't say. Then that's not rehash.

Just make sure you are always adding more to the debate, but on that note. Do not bring up new information in questioning. This is both rude and abusive towards your opponents because you are asking them questions about evidence they do not have. If the information has been given in a speech before, then it is fine. But beyond that, in NSDA rules, it is not allowed.

Also, I prefer quality over quantity. If you give one or two amazing speeches during the whole day, while someone else gave 4 or 5 sub par speeches. I will most likely favor you. I also like people who use up their whole time, and don't abuse the grace period. (That is the 10 or 15 seconds most PO's giver after the three minute allotted time.)

I also like extemp speaking. Now I don't mean you can't have any prep. I'm just saying, have good eye contact with everyone in the room. (Mainly just looking around the room. You're trying to convince everyone else in the room to join your side, not the judges.)

On the topic of decorum. Decorum is one of the largest parts of Congress. (Decorum is like general professionalism in the round.) Always make sure you are being professional in the round.

Congress Presiding Officer:

I typically rank the PO, but only for specific qualifications.

1. Make sure you are keeping up with Precedence and Recency, as well as call on the correct people so the round is fair for everyone.

2. Make sure your not being biased. I understand giving your friend or teammate a speech fast, but after precedence and recency has been set for both speeches and questioning. It should be based off of that.

3. Finally, making you sure you keep the round together and running smooth. If it's a rowdy house then I understand if you can't. But if you do manage to keep it all together, especially in a rowdy house. Kudos to you.

Sam Spethman Lincoln Southwest High School

Anna Synya Lincoln Southwest High School

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 7:56 AM CDT

Pronouns: she/her

Bio:

I did LD in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (so I am only familiar with a very trad form of LD) and I did Extempt speech in 2019 for a short period of time. I did Congress in 2019, 2020, and 2021 & coached LSW Congress from 2021-2023

I am a student at UNL studying Criminology with a concentration in History and minors in Sociology, English, and Digital Humanities.

Congress:

have some decorum! it's important to follow PO rules & https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf
Present: Clearly, loudly, & respectfully
Debate: Respond to arguments made in the round & don't rehash (repeat the points or evidence of another without adding to the debate in some significant way)
Involvement: Ask questions whenever you can of other debaters, make motions, & flow the round
have a golly good time & be nice to each other

sources should have a year & author's last name (at minimum) and should not have the month or day (unless you can justify it's inclusion via relevance)
PO's: I will rank you, but I take mistakes pretty seriously, especially if they result in someone not getting a speech when they should have. A lot of the time I will keep track of the precedence and recency myself as well so I know how to rank your abilities.

PF:

display sound logic and reasoning
present clash
communicate ideas with clarity & practice decorum, and be nice to your opponents!
do not spread, I will knock on the table or say clear if you are doing so to the point of me not understanding.
arguments will be weighed to the point that they are well explained, if an argument uses too much technical language, or is given too fast you just might notice that in your RFD! I am a "well-informed citizen" treat me as such
have fun! we are all here to learn and enjoy our time as we debate ideas and contribute in a creative way to our peers in an effort to expand our thinking
I expect you all to time yourselves and be honest about that. I may also keep track of time, but no guarantees. For novices, I will likely be keeping track of time, and I am willing to give you 30-second warnings during prep if you would like.
making up evidence isn't cool, don't do it

borrowed heavily from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/NFL_PF_judging.pdf

LD:

- Not familiar with many Kritical arguments or Kritiques so you need to explain them clearly, do not assume I will understand without an explanation! Do not assume I know all of the jargon you are using, explain it!!

- Will happily vote on progressive LD stuff, nontopical affs, K's, and all the other fun stuff! just need definitions

- Slow down a bit, or I unfortunately will not understand your argument.

- If you make your argument clear, address your opponent's argument, are respectful, speak loudly and clearly, you will succeed!

- prefer having access to the cases so I can read along but it is not a necessity

(This next portion is stolen from Prema Vasudevan's paradigm)

"I believe that debate is an educational space, and we are all trying to learn! Please do your part to foster a welcoming environment where everyone can learn from each other and engage with each other’s ideas. In short, please be respectful towards your opponent (and me) so we can all learn and have a good time at debate.

- If you are running any arguments that are sensitive, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.

- I have absolutely no tolerance for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. in the debate space. Such behaviors are unacceptable, I will not hesitate to drop you on the face, your speaker points will reflect this, and I will contact your coach to address these issues.

- I tended to lean more traditional as a debater, but I have experience with a wide variety of arguments. If you have more progressive or 'out there' arguments or debating style there is one thing that is very important to keep in mind: I am open to hearing any arguments so long as I understand your argument. Have a clear understanding of your arguments, and clearly explain those arguments to me and your opponent.

- I do not vote for disclosure theory. I encourage debaters to file share if there are internet issues with tourneys over zoom but I do not vote for theory based on disclosure on the wiki.

I think my former coach put it best so I will have to quote him here: "I strive to be open to all forms of argument, but both I and your opponent need to understand them in order to have an effective debate."

All:

I judge rounds to the best of my ability and in good faith. If my RFD is not clear or you would like to ask me questions about my judging feel free to do so!

Connor Whalen Hire

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 3:34 AM CDT

please add me to the email chain - cwhaldebate@gmail.com
he/him
Order is policy, then PF

Do not trivialize, commodify, or deny the Holocaust.

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. If you are being recruited by or are committed to UNL, please conflict me!

I graduated from Patriot High School (VA) in 2022, having done WACFL PF for a year. Currently, I'm competing in NFA-LD (election reform, nukes) at the University of Nebraska. I usually judge as a hired gun of sorts for Ivy Bridge, as well as various schools on the Nebraska circuit.

Outside of debate I'm pursuing a Bachelors' of Science in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Agronomy. I'm also a tutor, a research assistant, and an intern with the state extension agency. I mainly research risk management (price volatility) and anti-trust policy (amongst other things).

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. I'm generally pro-disclosure. I don't care if you sit or stand during your speeches. I'm fine with observers so long as both debaters are.

My flow is generally pretty tight. I tend to prefer the line-by-line, and debaters who are able to stick to it tend to do better in front of me. Obviously like (almost) everything in this paradigm this is a default, so try to change it however you like. I am not persuaded by team clout, verbal abuse, or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside of debate and I have my dogs.

That said - if you have questions (about the round, my judging preferences, college apps, econ help...) - feel free to reach out!

I think about debate pretty similarly to (in no particular order) Ayyah Al-Jibouri, Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Adrienne Phillips, and Sarah Stevenson-Peck

Case debate - The best. I will almost never not vote for a solid 2NR case collapse, if you pull this off in front of me you will almost certainly get 30 speaker points no questions asked. I'm not entirely sure what a "risk of offense" even is and will readily pull the trigger on presumption if it's won.

DA/CP combo - Yes and yes. Run your cheater counterplans in front of me - almost anything goes so long as it's in the topic lit and you can do any additional justification. PICs are (almost) always good, consult/QPQ is fine on IR topics, and delay/miscellaneous conditions is illegitimate.

T v. Policy - Was my bread and butter during the elections topic. Using T to set up other off-case positions (either you're non-topical or you link to this DA, etc) is always a good time. I default to competing interps and don't need proven abuse.

Theory - I default to reject the arg, not the team in most instances. Most neg theory save for T/FW, test case (chef's kiss) and vagueness (my beloved), are probably frivolous. The only reject the team argument in terms of aff theory (save for condo) is probably object fiat. If you argument is best described as originating from circuit LD (cough cough three tier method cough cough), then I'm not the judge for you.

T-USFG - In a bloodbath, I wouldn't consider myself a hack - that said, I'm pretty receptive to the TVA. Do with that what you will.

K - If you know what you're doing, go for it.

Up my alley: Cap, Orientalism/Terror Talk, Militarism, Miscellaneous Ks of Economics (if you run Cybernetics and do it well I won't be able to shut up about it)
It's a wash: SetCol, Biopower, some Psychoanalysis (the nukes topic is wild)
Not my forté but I can follow: AB/Afropess, Fem IR, Queer Theory, most other arguments not listed (if you have specific questions ask)
Please don't: Heidigger, Agamben, Nietzche

PF specifics

For WACFL tournaments (this is important!!), the best case scenario is that I get approximately 5 minutes to make my decision before the tabroom starts busting down my door. Please be time efficient.
Only way to get a 30 is to share speechdocs with unparaphrased evidence (policy-style cards).
The line-by-line and keeping a tight (and clean) flow are your friend.
Tag team crossfire is welcome. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention during it; if in doubt, anything you say is binding.
I don't tend to jive with PF jargon (quantify, scope, de-link, terminal offense, etc).
First rebuttal should not extend their own case. Doing so guts any advantage you get from speaking first. On the flip side, second rebuttal is expected to attack and defend.
Please don't steal prep.

Login to Tabroom

The NaviGator at Northstar

2023 — Lincoln, NE/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges