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.

Age: 25

College: Anhui University of Technology

Current Occupancy: Student in College

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

I have 4 years of experience as a debater. I have participated in Public Forum debates, World School debates, and British Parliamentary debates.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps in maximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness doesn't win you the round, let's be polite to one another and stick to the important facts.

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

I believe that public forum debate is all about reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence and impact. It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and the impact, you can win the round. Therefore, the team with the better claim, warrant, and impact wins the round.

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

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on four speeches: constructive, rebuttal, summary, and final focus. As long as you do well in these four speeches, you are guaranteed success.

Good luck and remember to have fun, everyone!

I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.

Good luck to all!

I am a seasoned PF debate enthusiast and judge, stressing the significance of clarity and comprehension in debates, cautioning against aggressive behavior while advocating for a respectful tone. With over 5 years of experience judging university and high school tournaments, I emphasize evaluation criteria of strong arguments, evidence, persuasion skills, and engagement with opposing viewpoints to determine the debate winner. I encourage debaters to present clear, concise arguments supported by reputable evidence and to foster respectful dialogue for a meaningful exchange of ideas.

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.