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.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.

Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.

I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
6. BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
7. WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
8. WSD online (October 2023)
9. WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
10. Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
11. BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
12. General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
13. TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
14. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
15. TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
16. TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
17. NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
18. TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
19. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

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.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

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.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

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.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?[d]

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)

It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]

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)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.

Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. 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

K@sh

Age: 30 years

University: NCWU

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student of Phd

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

I have participated in academic debates, environmental conferences, and training and development-related debates. My debate career spans nearly three years as a professional, following the completion of my degree. I also engaged in debate activities intermittently during my educational journey.

2.How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in debates, also called "spreading," means talking really fast to say a lot in a short time. People do this to share many arguments and evidence, make good use of time, and sometimes confuse their opponents. But whether it's okay or not depends on the debate's rules and what's normal in that debate community. Speaking quickly can be good for covering a lot of ground, but it can also make things hard to understand for judges and the audience. So, debaters should speak in a way that fits the rules and what's expected in that particular debate. If it's clear and easy to follow, it's usually fine.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

I consider aggressiveness as a factor in evaluating debaters. It can be effective when it conveys passion and assertiveness in presenting arguments and engaging withopponents. However, it must remain respectful and professional, avoiding personal attacks and derogatory language. Aggressiveness should be accompanied by well-reasoned arguments and effective rebuttals, and it should enhance audience engagement without causing confusion or hostility. Rule adherence is crucial, and excessive aggressiveness, such as interruptions or dominating the discussion, should be avoided to maintain a balanced and productive debate environment.

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

As a debate judge, I evaluate debaters based on a set of key criteria, including the strength of arguments, effectiveness of rebuttals, clarity and organization, use of credible evidence, respectful conduct, time management, adaptability, adherence to the debate format and awareness of resolution. The winning debater or team excels in these areas by effectively presenting their case, countering opposing arguments, following the rules, and maintaining a respectful demeanor. Clarity, credible evidence, impact full rebuttals, and adaptability are particularly valued. It's essential for debaters to tailor their approach to the specific debate's rules and expectations, as judges may have different preferences.

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

As a judge, I value well-structured and clear arguments that are supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning. I appreciate debaters who engage in respectful and constructive dialogue, focusing on the substance of the argument rather than personal attacks. Please be concise and to the point in your responses, and avoid going off-topic. It's important to address your opponent's points directly and provide counterarguments or rebuttals where necessary. Additionally, while passion is important, I encourage debaters to maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Remember that clarity, relevance, and logical coherence are key to winning the debate in my view.

6. How many Lincoln- Douglas Debate tournaments have you judged in the past year?
A. 0-5



7. How many tournament have you judged in the past year?

6-10

8. How many notes d you take during a debate?

I write down the points that I think are important.

9. What is the main job of the summary?

Highlight the major clash points and show how your team won them.

10. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? (1 -10)

10

11. How important is framework to your decision making?
9

12. How important is crossfire in your decision making?
7
13. How important is weighing in your decision making?
7
14. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in decision making?
10
15. How fast should student speak?
8

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

PF and BP. Have 6 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ WSDA, and 10+ DLC tournaments. Also, I did a half-year TA experience at Speechcraft in Chengdu, mainly for PF debate and speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.

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

I would consider the following three sections:

First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).

Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).

Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.

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

I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.

I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.