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.

Yo! I'm an Ex-PF debater with some experience in Chinese Debate and WSD. I was predominantly debating as a second speaker in PF.

I primarily judge debates based on impact comparison. Speed does not matter to me (I can handle them), but you could lose a debate for very poor clarity.

Framework debate is super IMPORTANT to me. By this, I mean it is okay not to say a framework if you are running a cost-benefit analysis or simple utilitarian framework, but plz don’t forget that you have one: it is the backbone of the entire debate on your side.

I like link turns, good use of logic, moving pathos and public speaking (especially in FF—yeah, I listen to them), and philosophical args (well, I know they are not favorable for now— don’t run them for the sake of pleasing the judge). :p

I value (highly) your conduct!!! Please don’t be a bully during the debate. These are practice rounds. Let’s be nice. (Note: you can be a nice and aggressive debater. It’s okay to be aggressive, but it’s not okay to be rude. )

I have little knowledge about this topic since I’m retiring, but I do have sufficient experience with law topics in PF. Thus, expect me to give general advice instead of specific ones on the topic.

Good luck!!! :D

President of National Day Debate Club, President of BJHSDL

Coached debate in BJ National Day School Debate Club for 2 years

2023 Winter Tufts&Harvard Invitationals Open Quater

2023 Winter NHSDLC Open Champion+spkr

2022 Fall NHSDLC Open Champion+spkr

2021 Fall NSDA HS Open Champion*2

2021 Fall NSDA HS Open Quater+spkr

2021 Spring NSDA HS Open Semi+spkr

2021 Spring NSDA BJ HS Open Quater

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking in China and had won various awards in tournaments. Graduating from high school in 2020, I began my judging career as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.