Tagnon,+Julien

=**__Julien Tagnon __**= I debated HS VLD at Newman Smith High School in Carrollton. Contact me at __Paintballvet18@gmail.com__ if you have any questions.

**__Judging History:__** Here. I give all the credit to Lawrence Zhou for the spreadsheet.

If anyone wants their ballots removed, please contact me. I will happily abide by any requests. Ballots from Grapevine (Tabroom), Lindale (not released), Arlington (not released), UNT (Tabroom), Hebron (Tabroom), Hockaday RR (not released), Hockaday (Tabroom), Athens (not released), or Creekview (Tabroom), and Berkner (Tabroom) are not available.
 * __Debate__ ** __**Ballots:**__ Here.


 * __Stuff to know: __ **
 * I probably won't consider flashing as prep for local tournaments. If you abuse this, you will pay for it in one way or the other (probably speaker points)
 * I recommend flashing your case to your opponent or sending it by email. I will not require this, but I recommend it. I, in fact, will boost your speaker points by a tenth of a point if you do (+.1)
 * Stand/sit/dance/jog/sing I don't care. Just look at me when you are speaking
 * __**Please add me to the email chain, hand me to the flash drive, etc.**__
 * Just because I am now on the email chain does not mean you can let your speaking slide. Pls. This'll make me sad.

=**__Speaking of speaks: __**= I prefer word economy! You will make me sad if you ramble. You will also make me sad if you steal prep time.

LD: I start at 28.5 and move up or down (probably up, more often than not, down) by whatever increments the tournament asks. Half a point added if you crack a joke that I laugh at. You will also receive a .1 increase if you disclose your case to your opponent. Not doing this doesn't change my view on you, but I just want to provide incentive to do so...

PF: I start at 28.5 and move up or down by whatever increments the tournament asks.

=**__The Important Stuff: __**=

Coaches coach, debaters debate, and judges judge. No cross entry is allowed.
In the words of Derek Liles from Law Magnet, " Thoughtfully select a strategic endgame and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds." That will make my job of writing the ballot oh so easier at the end of the round.


 * The only thing that isn't debatable in LD is speech times. Everything else is up to you...**

I will do my absolute best to flow. Yes, I now flow on paper. If you want me to be more accurate on my flow, hand me your cases and AR/NRs. That being said, if you completely disregard a line by line analysis, I will __**not**__ do the work for you to figure out where on the flow I should be typing your rebuttals. That, good sir/ma'am, is up to you. If you hear me stop writing or see me looking very confused or dumbfounded, then you've probably lost me. Or you've said something very, very weird.
 * General Idea**

I suppose I believe truth over tech, but I have a tendency to vote on dropped arguments more times than not.
 * Tech v. Truth-**

The Aff probably ought to be topical... Now the key word there is "probably" because if the Aff isn't topical and the Neg doesn't go for topicality, well... sucks for them? Other than that, I am open to any framework proposed in the 1AC. I'm also a policy hack (sorta), so I love hearing Aff Plans. I feel like on a FW level, a non-plan Aff usually wins because the Neg collapses and has no idea what to do. Either way, if your AC FW is phil, you need to explain it and make sure I know what goes on in the Aff world.
 * The Aff-**

I love the K. A lot. One ought to have a specific link though. As for the Aff answers to this, I don't think so-called "generic" answers will do the Aff any good. The 1AR (in my mind) should make analytical arguments based on specific points from the 1AC, not read generic BS. But hey, **you do you.** Go for PIKs if you want to, I'm chill with those as well.
 * The K-**


 * K UPDATE:** I have grown a new fondness for dense K or phil lit. To be honest, all too often these Ks make for very interesting debates that end in one of two ways:
 * 1) The 1AR and 2AR undercovers the alt. I think that it isn't the negative's job to explain the alternative but rather the affirmative's job to get the negative to explain it. CX post the 1NC/1NR is crucial in my opinion. Undercovering/misinterpreting the alt is usually a very easy way for me to pull the trigger and negate
 * 2) I grant a perm. This usually doesn't happen but if the aff solves the alt with a "Perm - do the aff then the alt", I am inclined to affirm

Either way, I'm starting to love these debates a lot. The kind of "hey we ought to kill ourselves to deliver us from suffering" is great to think about as a judge. To be honest, K debates in my mind need to explain to the judge what I should philosophically be thinking in the round. That's when I truly as a judge learn something in the debate. And I love it.

Small note on dense phil: Please explain your advocacy so I dont have to go fishing in the depths of the nexus. And extend it through the 2NR/2AR.

However, in the words of the mighty Bennet Eckert, " Good K debates can be really really good and interesting, and bad ones are just dreadful--there's rarely an in-between. Please don't be a bad one." Take that for however you want to take it, but be forewarned.

I've only heard one so far and I think my life has changed now... That debate on a whole was a very interesting yet weird one, and reflecting on it, the Kritikal Aff poses a problem to the negative that is resolvable by doing the one thing I hate most: Throwing everything possible on the wall and hoping something sticks. I really honestly can't say more about this than that. Honestly, this part of the paradigm probably sounds very stupid to more experienced judges, but hey, this is my show.
 * The Kritikal Affirmative-**

I'm cool with these. I'm also cool with the PICs and so forth. I really want to see why the CP brings a net benefit because if there is no net benefit, why vote on it? Furthermore, I think that the CP has to be competitive in a world debate. If it isn't different from the 1AC plan, then I will default Aff faster than you can kick the CP. If you run a PIC, yes please, but be probably to argue a PICs bad shell if the 1AR goes for theory. Speaking of voting on stuff: Is condo good? bad? let me know...
 * The CP-**

Go for it. The link is crucial, internal link second, and probably least important is the impact because chances are, the Aff causes the Apocalypse because of the Disad (am I right? probably...). I like policy args like these and CPs, so have fun with them. Honestly, my ideal case is 3-off and case (probably K, CP, Disad or K, Disad 1, Disad 2), so I would hope that the Disads are well constructed overall. Other than that, I'm open to evaluating anything in the round.
 * The DA-**

I feel like oftentimes, substance is lost for complicated theory debates that often result in a wash. That being said, I default to co mpeting interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory. Anything else is up to you. Just to let you know again, I will be sad if the debate just comes down to shell vs shell and everything is ignored. But hey, **you do you.**
 * The Theory-**

I am inclined to listen to Disclosure Theory in circuit debate, much less so in locals. If Disclosure T is read in a circuit round, I will pull the trigger 99% of the time if 1) your opponent didn't disclose, and 2) your opponent is not clearly less experienced than you are. If in a circuit tournament and if you have a team policy that mandates non-disclosure, **strike me.**

I suppose. Honestly, it'll probably make me slightly angry if all you do is throw down a string of spikes in the AC/NC, but hey, if that's your strategy go for it. Skep debates usually deteriorate into theory, but I suppose you can win on the framework as well.
 * Tricks (updated 10/9/17)**

Point being, do whatever you want and explain to me why you win because of it. Don't make me guess on what I should vote for, because if my guessing is like my last college exam, well...

Having watched the NDT Finals in 2017 where Rutgers NM defeated Georgetown on a 4-1, I personally don't like personal narrative aff/neg strats. Again, run them if you'd like, but just know that everything you say that is unsubstantiated is on shaky ground right off the bat.
 * Digression**

__ FAQ: __

Hahahahahaha. Wanna ask something more specific?
 * What is your paradigm?**

Ones in which there are clash, where both debaters are fully involved to win and show a high proficiency in the understanding of the literature and material
 * What are your favorite kinds of debates?**

High-speed Theory debates where substance is completely ignored
 * What are your least favorite kinds of debates?**

Do you think people would hire me if I wasn't?
 * Are you OK with speed?**

Nope
 * Seating preferences?**

Nope
 * Standing preferences?**

Yes....
 * Are there arguments you don't want me to make?**

Bad ones.

The 5-time Super Bowl champions from the northeast.
 * Favorite football team?**

Stark (Lannisters suck) :)
 * If you were in Game of Thrones, which house would belong to?**

The one and only, Shawshank Redemption. A close second would be Up. I have an emotional connection to that movie...
 * Favorite movie?**

-- --

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. Or better yet, email me before the round and I'll answer the question before we start.

Good luck to all!