julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

TONY KIMANI

Age: 24

Current occupation: Undergraduate Student

College: Central South University, Hunan, Changsha

During my four years of high school years, I participated in various debates as a speaker, and in the 2018-2019 national debate, I participated as a judge. Some debate topics included:

1.Universal Basic Income (UBI): Should governments provide a guaranteed income to all citizens, regardless of their employment status, to alleviate poverty and promote economic stability?

2.Internet Privacy: Is it justified for governments or corporations to monitor and collect personal data?

3.Genetic Engineering and CRISPR Technology: Should humans be allowed to modify the genetic makeup of living organisms, including human embryos, to treat diseases or enhance desirable traits?

4.Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Should societies prioritize the protection of free speech, even if it means allowing hate speech?

I consider fast talking as a level of confidence and time consciousness as long as the speed doesn’t render the words said by the speaker unclear. Politeness is a key aspect of giving out speaker points as it ensures order in the debate room. I make a judgment on the winner based on the logic of the clash and how the speaker debates the claim. This, however, needs substantial up-to-date evidence and logic.

I would urge debaters to be composed and argue their points without rushing. If debaters are well prepared to debate either as a pro or con of a debate, then they will stand in a good position in making reasonable claims and in the crossfire.

In speeches, I like to see confidence and composure. It displays good understanding of the topic and shows that the speaker practiced enough before the presentation.

Greetings and welcome to my judging paradigm. I approach debates with an open mind, seeking to provide constructive feedback and promote a positive educational experience for all participants. As a judge, I strive to be fair, impartial, and attentive to the arguments presented in each round.

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and effective communication. Debaters need to engage in thoughtful analysis, support their claims with evidence, and demonstrate logical reasoning. I encourage debaters to be respectful, considerate, and inclusive in their interactions with others.

In evaluating rounds, I consider several factors, including(But not limited to):

1. Content: I assess the strength and clarity of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the logical coherence of the presented case.

2. Delivery: I take into account the debaters' speaking skills, including articulation, tone, and the ability to effectively engage with the audience.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: I value debaters' ability to engage with opposing arguments, provide effective rebuttals, and engage in meaningful clashes with their opponents.

4. Strategy: I appreciate strategic decision-making, including the ability to adapt to the debate's flow, utilize time efficiently, and construct persuasive narratives.

5. Etiquette: I expect all participants to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, respect, and professionalism. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language will not be entertained.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debates, and I look forward to a productive and enjoyable tournament.

I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.

I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

Name: Neil Yao

College: Master’s Degree at Duke University, Fuqua School of Business. Bachelor’s Degree at Peking University, National School of Development (NSD)

Current Occupancy: Professional Debate Coach, Experienced College Application Counselor

1.What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

My speech and debate career has been 10 years. I have participated in all kinds of debate competitions including NSDA PF debate, Singapore College BP debate (impromptu), WSC debate, Shenzhen EDS Debate Competition, etc.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

I do not recommend speaking more than 180 words per minute since such speed would compromise your clarity of speaking. After all, you don’t want me to miss some of your important arguments or rebuttals.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I accept being aggressive, but being aggressive does not mean being impolite. If I feel that one speaker is intimidating or threatening the other, I would pause to warn the speaker and consider punishment of his/her speaker point.

4.How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Determine the winner of the debate: I will narrow the whole round of debate in three clash points (sometimes fewer or more, depending on the situation), and I will also look at arguments that are not responded to. I will only consider your analysis, evidence, and impact. I will look at analysis and evidence first to determine which team has done obviously better to win the clash point, but when both teams have relatively equivalent analysis and evidence, I will consider whose impact is stronger. After determining the clash points and unresponded arguments that each team win, I will finally weigh the winning points from both sides, considering not only which team wins more points, but also the relative importance of the points from the each team.

Determine the speaker point: your preparedness, structure, politeness&manner, English speaking ability, accuracy of language.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

A) I do not accept any new arguments from the Summary Speaker, and of course Final Focus Speaker. I believe that allowing new arguments from Summary Speakers will give Team B an unfairly big advantage. Hence, both teams are only allowed to give rebuttals at Summary, but no new argument is allowed.

B) During the crossfire, I do not accept interrupting your opponents when they’ve just started answering or asking a question within 10 seconds. Although I do believe interrupting is allowed during crossfire, I will give both teams 10 seconds of protection time when they are speaking, so as to prevent one team from speaking disproportionately more than the other.