Pembroke hill

she/they

Add me to the email chain: maubuchondebate@gmail.com (Speechdrop also works but prefer email chain)

1 year of PFD (Section 230, UNSC)

Novice year of policy

MSDI 24'

General:

Assume I am knowledgeable about the topic. Cut the fluff. DO IMPACT CALC. There are too many rounds i have watched where the teams don't do impact calc or they start doing it too late and lose the round. SIGNPOST. when teams jump from argument to argument very quickly in an unorganized manner, it makes for a very messy flow and makes it harder for me to decide. just signpost. LINE BY LINE PLEASE :)

Tech > Truth

I would say I am very tech compared to a lot of judges. If you make an argument (no matter how ridiculous), your opponents must respond to it. If your opponents drop something, it becomes true, no matter how crazy it is. Debate is a game.

Speed:

You can go as fast as you want. Just please provide a doc. If you don’t and I miss something, that’s on you. But please slow down on tags and authors. If it isn’t on the doc, (like analysis), please slow down. I will clear you, but after a couple of clears (and you don’t slow down), I will stop flowing. Online debate should slow down like 10%.

Cross:

I won’t flow it, nor take it into consideration for my decision unless brought up in a speech. Cross only increases your speaks.

Speaks:

Passionate debaters are the best. Will increase speaks for it. I don’t care about cursing. If you say brobdingnagian i will give you +0.1 speaks. My default for speaks is 27. i go either up or down from there. also refer to the beautiful image above for more information.

Disclosure:

I think there almost no scenario where the aff doesn't disclose and the neg doesn't disclose pass off positions. I also think that teams should os on the wiki. If not disclosure theory is def a voter.

Progressive vs Traditional

I am not the biggest fan of K affs that don't relate to the topic in anyway, but if you want to run them, be my guest. idc. everything else like theory, other ks, and stuff i love. more specifically, i love queer and fem ks. Disclosure theory obviously is fun and just in theory in general intrigues me, especially when it is impacted out correctly.

Policy:

I LOVE policy debate. I spend the majority of my time on debate thinking about policy. I have watched a lot of policy rounds.

PFD:

I also have a lot of experience in competing in PFD. I like framework debates but only on topics that makes sense. For example, UNSC topic was not the time to have a framework debate, or even a framework. But on value topics, go for it. If no framework is provided, will be judged like a policy debate. DO IMPACT CALC.

LD:

Very very inexperienced with LD. I know there’s value and criterions. But that’s about it. Please consider me lay. one of my closest debate friends does LD so i do help him write cases sometimes (mostly progressive tho). I also judge 2 rounds of it at a tournament i hosted and tabbed.

nchs '27

acs '23

i apologize for the length of my paradigm, but not really.

LD:

do whatever, i'm basically the most tech heavy judge ever due to primarily being a cx debater. do with that what you will.

policy:

for email chains, just use cegorman@stu.naperville203.org.

as far as how i judge, the following can almost always be consulted :

i always will go in tabula rasa. like, fr. judge bias does not exist for me.

speed/clarity:spreading is fine and dandy- but make sure to be clear. if i can't understand you then i can't flow it.

flowing: i typically flow on paper and expect debaters to flow throughout the round. dropped arguments are a big deal to me- but if you don't point out a drop, there's nothing i can really do.

topicality:if you're in the mmsdl, it's really not a voter for me. otherwise, i'm a really good judge on T- i really like more "trad" arguments, or traditional ones, so i tend to weigh T a bit heavier than other judges.

i expect debaters to keep their own clock and be aware of their prep time. i'll run my own timer as well, but running your own timer is good practice.

speaker points/extras:

i will remove speaker points for false claimed drops. this was a HUGE issue on the ms circuit when i was active on it, and it just makes me cringe a bit.

i'll likely add a bit of a boost to your score if you have emotion (up to 0.4ish). pathos is important!!

throw some rhetoric in- have fun!

dude, please don't call me "judge." it makes me feel geriatric.

tech>truth, always.

happy debating , and if you've read this far down pre-round, you're MILES ahead of the competition :)

specifics for the high school circuit:

k-affs: please don't read these on me. it won't go over well. you're brave, but please don't run one.

k's in general: in general, i'm not a super huge fan of kritiks purely because i learned to debate on the middle school circuit. that being said, if you can convince me, i'll vote on it. but if you're going for a k, you need to kind of fully commit to it. with heavier arguments, you can't just "sprinkle in" some lacan, for example- fully flesh out your k arguments! i feel like with k's, especially in recent years, they've been a bit of an afterthought- you need to KNOW your k's in and out, because everyone in the room can tell when you don't really know what you're reading. however, i love ethics/philosophy related k's when argued to their full potential.

k v k debates: in the wise words of kavin bendre, "i have little idea what's happening in these debates, but if you win you win."

counterplans:i've seen A LOT of low-key abusive cps. i'll be annoyed at you for running an abusive one. advantage cp's are fine on their own, but adding arduous amounts of planks and kicking them when they're no longer convenient for you is not lol.

t:i'm a big fan of T. there's not much more to say.

theory:i understand theory to an extent. i'm still not the largest fan, and would MUCH rather prefer fw.

etiquette: be civil. be nice. please. sass is fine (and lowkey encouraged), but there's 100% a line between sarcasm/snark and being a jerk.

again, please don't run everything stated in your 1nc in your 2nr. it will make me violently sob and you'll alsolikely have an equally miserable time. nobody likes to flow 300 arguments by the last rebuttals. seriously. if you're going for T in the 2nr- it better be the ONLY thing you're arguing.

go for the dumb arguments. debate is a game, and while there IS value in serious rounds, everyone has more fun if you go for a more laid-back approach. make jokes, go for a funny impact, do whatever.

congress:

in the (rare) event that i'm judging congress:

i'll usually start the po off at the minimum place to break, and mistakes/things done well help/hurt your ranks.

general stuff (all events):

the line between passionate and hysterical is a thin one, watch that line. (probably the greatest feedback on a ballot i've ever gotten)

loud doesn't equal right.

know your timing- have a good idea of how much time you have left in a constructive, speech, or rebuttal.

flow- no matter what event you're in, flowing is super important.