Pak,+Julius

toc
 * Disclaimer**: My opinions on certain topics do naturally change from time to time. I will do my best to update this page before each tournament I judge at (of which changes and updates can be monitored with the revisions tab on the upper right corner), but __**the best way to be absolutely sure of my positions on any issue is to ask me before round.**__ I would also be happy to answer any questions you may have about my preferences, whether right before round or while filling out preferences, if you find anything here confusing, unclear, or omitted.

This page was last updated for the 2015 Glenbrooks Tournament.

**Background**
I debated for Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, CA from 2008-2012. I spent much of my senior year coaching and judging, but did compete and "break" at national-circuit tournaments. I currently law school at Georgetown. Over the past few years, I have also been teaching speech, debate, and Model United Nations to high-school students in the U.S. and East Asia.

**General**
It has been a while since my last time judging Lincoln-Douglas debate (January 2015 at the Harvard-Westlake Tournament, and before that, the 2014 Glenbrooks Tournament), although I do have prior experience judging at the ToC and national circuit tournaments like Berkeley. This means that while I do have a grasp on what LD debate is, I will probably be more on the lay side of the judging spectrum.

At a fundamental level, I do not believe that debaters should not have their access to the ballot restricted simply because their views are not in perfect sync with mine. That being said, I do not believe that it is possible to be a completely unbiased judge going into the round. I do, however, try to minimize such biases when adjudicating a round in that I will listen to almost any argument presented to me. Regardless, it is still your job as a debater to convince me not only of why you should win the round, but why you should be able to access the arguments you use to "win" the round. I find it easiest to adjudicate the rounds where there is clear weighing of standards and arguments. Impacts that link back to standards are also nice, because that's how I tend to vote for people in rounds. I find crystallization to be incredibly helpful for judges (and thus advantageous for debaters) especially when rounds have become messy and muddled. Even a short run-down of the layout of the round is exponentially more helpful than nothing at all.

I am better at adjudicating certain arguments and certain rounds better than others. As a college student studying social sciences, I have a stronger knowledge of arguments involving policy implementation or foreign policy, although the topic of jury nullification was actually used while I was still in high-school. My knowledge of theory-level arguments comes only from the debate rounds I have participated in and judged in, on top of the far-too-little time I have spent thinking of what debate really should be like. My knowledge of philosophy is #basic and rudimentary. If you want to run dense, philosophical positions, I am probably not your ideal judge since I will not easily understand your arguments.


 * Clear signposting is always a good thing.**

**Speaker** **Points**
I begin with a 27. From there, I add points to reward good strategy, persuasion, argumentation, speaking style, and just being an all-around good human being. I deduct points for the opposites of things I add points for. Kinda makes sense like that. A general guide to my speaker points (excluding the option for tenths of points that you see at fancy tournaments):

30: You should win the tournament. 29-29.5: You should make it to late outrounds. 28.5: You should break. 27.5-28: You debated well. 27: You debated okay. 25.5-26.5: You debated at a below average level. 24.5-25: You debated poorly. <24.5: Reserved for offensive arguments/behavior.

Again, please feel more than welcome to approach me about anything before the round.

After the round, for the sake of expediency, my RFD is usually a literal RFD: why one side won. If you have additional questions about your personal performance, please ask or find me after the round.

I am also more than willing to stay after the round is over to talk about what happened in the round if you so wish. However, before you do so, know that my decision in the round is final after I sign the ballot. Even if I deliver to you (and tab) a signed confession that our post-debate chat was revelatory to me about the errors of my ways, the initial decision will still stand. Also, please let your opponent leave before you do so.

But most importantly, just relax, and have fun. Your records and trophies aren't going to matter within a couple of years, but the people you meet and the experiences you take in will still be hanging around for at least a few decades, which can get mad awkward if you're focusing on the wrong things.

Cheers.