Hello, everyone!

My name is Julian Aguilar and I currently attend Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, NY - a ways away from y'all. I attended Turlock High and graduated in May 2019. I have competed successfully in Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary Debate, World Schools Debate, and Original Prose and Poetry at league tournaments, invitational tournaments, the CHSSA State Tournament, and the NSDA National Tournament. I was the lead team captain in high school for two years. I have coached Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years, and have coached World Schools for three.

I will follow judging guidelines and rules down to a tee for any debate event. The below is merely my preference. Again, please note that I will follow all guidelines of the events to a tee (and I do indeed know all the rules). I value the crafted format of the event.

My decisions will never, ever, ever be based on:

• Personal bias: My preference for a side of the resolution or a topic bias shall not enter into the decision. I will decide the round based on the arguments presented in that round. Objectivity is my primary responsibility.

• Partiality: I will not be influenced by the reputation of or relationship with the debaters, schools, or coaches. If a situation arises where impartiality is in doubt, I have the responsibility to report this potential conflict of interest to the tab room.

• New arguments introduced into rebuttals: I will disregard new arguments introduced in the rebuttals (where applicable). This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the answering of arguments introduced by opponents.

For debates, I prefer quality rather than quantity. In other words, I do not agree with, enjoy, or encourage spreading or a rapid-fire delivery to spew information. I will not flow anything I cannot follow. I will not count anything said after my timer indicates time is up, nor will I count "off-time" roadmaps - they are on-time.

Please note I will not disclose (nor am I allowed to disclose) but am happy to provide feedback.

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION

I will go to TAB (without hesitation) and report if you break one of the following rules:

During a debate, speakers may not communicate with their coach, other team members who are not speaking in that debate, or any person in the audience.

During the debate, students may bring prepared notes with them into the round. However, no electronic retrieval devices (except the use of cellular phones on airplane mode for timing), including tablet and laptop computers, are permitted in the round.

A kind reminder to please silence the alarms when timing. I will alert you using debate protocol when protected time is done and when speaker time is up. I will welcome speakers when I am ready.

Another kind reminder that a judge’s scoring decisions using debate event-specific criteria are at the sole discretion of the judge(s) in the round and cannot be protested.

Some key things I am looking for:

*Please note that my political standings are more moderate left-of-center, but these in no way will ever impact my decision. As a debater, I understand that you do not get to choose your side and will not hold you to that. With that being said, no racist, sexist, or any other obscenely offensive comments will be tolerated.

1. Good clash on substance; and if required and necessary, definitional clash happens - but do not force it.

2. Impacts and warrants are present and follow the intended clear logic that debates normally should adhere to, while supported with cards. Cards should not lead the argument; your argument should lead the cards.

--- On that note, cards are not everything. The evidence is good, but not everything! Cards do not convince me, you do! Do not merely state cards. Follow through with commentary, warrants, and impacts.

3. Presentation and decorum are essential to any speech or debate event. While it is not everything, it elevates all arguments if you can clearly and professionally present yourself. This means that I will be holistically looking at speed, enunciation, filler words usage, organization, preparedness, and enthusiasm (do not sound like a robot). I will and can ding you for making faces, rolling eyes, and/or any other rude non-verbal communication.

4. Each debater has an equal burden to prove the validity of their respective side of the resolution as a general principle. Dropping one contention is bad, but should not be grounds for voting for one side - unless that one contention was major and pivotal to the round. Voting issues are a big deal, don't make me choose what areas you won/lost... tell me!

5. Make sure to ensure control over the debate. Do not let it skew to your opponent; stand your ground. Stay confident and consistent.

When Linking out to Nuclear war make sure to have a strong, evidenced-based link chain.

Tell me what you want me to do. Give me voters. You won't get credit for things you don't say.

Hello and Welcome!

I prefer clear and CIVIL debates. Personal attacks, targeting based on non-topical issues, continuously talking over someone, and any abuse of prep time are all things that will drop your speaker points very, very low.

I'm fine with speed, but you have to be both clear and organized. If you will be spreading, please include me on the email chain.

Clear signposting is essential. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Also, please note that I don't flow cross. If something comes up in cross and you want to make sure it's on my flow, you need to mention it in the following speech.

I'll weight voters if they're provided, otherwise I'll vote on the flow.

If you have any specific questions about my judging style or experience that are not addressed here, please feel free to ask before the start of the round.

ABOUT ME

Hi there! My name is Nicholas/Nick Panyanouvong (he/him). I'm a sophomore at Stanford studying biochemistry.

I was a member of the James Enochs speech and debate team for all four years of high school. I've competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, IX, Impromptu, OO, and OA. Over the course of my S&D career, I qualified to the CHSSA state tournament four times, NSDA nationals three times, and earned several bids to NIETOC/TOC.

DEBATE

I'm fairly versatile here. I prefer traditional debate, but I'm tangentially familiar with 'progressive' approaches like kritiks, theory, CPs, and so on. If you employ any of these strategies, I ask that you:

1) Slow down. I'm not too great with speed in general, so if you start spreading AND using technical jargon I will likely have no clue what you're saying.

2) If possible, provide a brief explanation of how your approach still engages with the resolution/your opponent's argument. Please don't just read off cards verbatim. If you're going to use Ks or theory shells, I want to know that you can articulate your point in laymen's terms. It'll also help me track your argument better.

Now for the more general stuff: I will flow the round, but I generally flow arguments, not cards. Try to avoid excessive reliance on evidence and remember to arguments back to your framework. I'm also not a huge fan of debates over the relevancy of evidence (e.g "my evidence was published more recently than my opponent's") unless you can provide a meaningful explanation as to how this difference may invalidate their argument.

If you would like to add me to an email chain: nickliem@stanford.edu

SPEECH

Not much to say here, but if I'm judging you in extemp/impromptu, please stay away from canned speeches! It's pretty noticeable when you twist the topic/question to fit a pre-prepared format. Don't worry if you have some verbal hiccups/awkward pauses - they're totally natural in spontaneous speaking! I would rather vote for that than a disingenuous speech.

And that's about it! Good luck!

Competitive Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Extemp, OA, PuFo, LD

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Coaching Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - Assistant (Alumni) Coach; Head Coach/Program Coordinator

Judging Experience

High School - CHSSA/NSDA - All events

Collegiate - NFA - Policy/CX

Background

I have been involved in speech & debate in some capacity since high school and competed at the collegiate level. My emphasis has namely been geared towards extemporaneous speaking and debate (namely PuFo, LD, and Policy/CX). Though I'm new to coaching, I've been in this community of wall takers for over 10 years and love every minute of it!

In terms of my general judging philosophy I'd say two phrases should be considered, those being "tabula rasa" (clean slate) and "sell me!". My perspective is that it's the competitors burden to prove to the judge or show why their performance is equipped to pick up the ballot. Certainly I can make the connection and piece together the narrative/story, but the more you ask me to intervene the more I have to implement my biases into the round. Long-story short it's disheartening to see competitors lose rounds because they leave ambiguity to be pieced together, and as a former competitor who has lost more than one round to this - I don't want to do the same to other speakers/debaters.

In general, from a technique standpoint if you act as though your judges are lay judges it's easier to ramp up than it is to tone back.

Debate Cues

1) Procedures - Card quals, roadmapping, and signposting

These make for a smooth round and much more efficient! Do your judge a favor and get things moving the longer the day, the less quality the adjudication- we get tired too haha

2) Arguments - Impact Calculus, Topicality, and Solvency

I generally am pretty open to what is brought forth, hence my "tabula rasa" spiel, but need to see a clear end result from either team in the debate. Whoever has the more believable and impact narrative will pick up the ballot.

3) Evidence - Needs to be there, this is debate...

No matter the style of debate, if you make an argument it needs to be proven in some way. If not then you ask me to be an "activist judge" where bias takes precedence over argumentation, in my view this is unfair to the competitors and bad for debate.

4) Sportsmanship - We all want to learn from this experience

Compete with honest intent and assertion, but not to cause harm. Too many a time debates get ugly and personal, that's not why we're here. This is a learning opportunity and academically stimulating. Let's keep it civil and competitive.

Speech Cues

1) Structure - Clear and concise

My coach taught me this rule and it's what I teach unto others: a) Tell them what you're gonna tell them; b) Tell them; c) Tell them what you told them. There should be a logical pattern in your speech.

2) Impact - Make it personable

Cultural competency is a really big aspect of public speaking that goes unsung. Find someway to connect with your audience and give us something tangible to take away from the speech, once completed.

3) Creativity - Bring it to life

I have a really special place for Interps and OPP because it brings forth the creative energy and so too can other speeches. Make this speech an experience for us to enjoy!

4) Authentic - You are the centerpiece

With speaking you are the epicenter, give the audience a reason to divert their attention to you! Also, bring some creativity to the forefront this makes for a more compelling speech.