Skip header content and main navigation Binghamton University, State University of New York - Patrick
Banner Brandon Evans Brittney Bleyle Trevor Reddick Phillip George Sonya Robinson Maneo Choudhury Daniel Friedman Joe Leeson-Schatz Anna Pinchuk Masakazu Kurihara Joshua Frumkin

Binghamton Speech & Debate

John Julian Sr

John Julian Sr
General Information
Name: John Julian Sr
Affiliation: University of Washington Bothell
Join Time: April 13, 2013 at 05:21PM EST
Send Message: You must Create an Account and Log-In to message users.
Debating Statistics
Wins: 0 (0 are Byes)
Losses: 0 (0 are Forfeits)
Average Points (Out of 30): 0 (0 total)
*Opponent Wins: 0
*Opponent Points: 0
Judging Statistics
Total Rounds Judged: 1
Average Points Given (Out of 30): 10.6
Voted Proposition In: 100% of rounds
Voted Opposition In: 0% of rounds
Average Length of Notes (Characters): 6681 (6681 total)
Matches
Current: None
Past:

Binghamton University's 1st Annual Online Debate Tournament

Show

*Does not count opponents in bye or forfeit rounds.

Other
About Me: Head Coach at Newport HS in Bellevue, WA. Senior Data Engineer for Global Payment Systems at Amazon.com. Judge infrequently on the college circuit - 2-3 tournaments per year. Judge every weekend on the HS circuit (National and/or local). 4 years HS experience, 3 years CEDA, NDT, & LD in college. 24 years coaching in HS - 5 team State Championships in 3 states since 1989.
Judge Philosophy: I evaluate policy positions using a traditional stock issues approach. Argumentation needs to be complete - I won't fill in the holes for you. Prima facie position must be established and maintained on the AFF. On case refutation and/or Counterplans are preferred over Kritikal argumentation (especially in the written debate format or recorded video format... not having sufficient time to research and respond on case will be considered weak refutation here).

Issues related to values positions must be justified by more than a simple pragmatic analysis. Normative moral positions are preferred. Establish your framework - link it to your position, and offer justification within that framework. Value objections to policy or to opposing positions are a priori... BUT they must apply to, and directly refute/justify rejection of, the specific case offered by the AFF or they will not be accepted (no matter how well formed or expressed they are).

Jargon doesn't impress me. Being a know-it-all doesn't impress me. Being a jerk absolutely doesn't impress me. Speed doesn't impress me. Good rhetoric, solid argumentation, clearly making the effort, and elegant debate impress me. Be professional. Stay on point.

Bottom line: The side that makes it easiest for me to vote for them will likely win my ballot. I've told you what I'm looking for. Do so and you will be rewarded. Ignore my philosophy at your own risk. Good luck.
Connect with Binghamton:
Twitter icon links to Binghamton University's Twitter page YouTube icon links to Binghamton University's YouTube page Facebook icon links to Binghamton University's Facebook page Pinterest icon links to Binghamton University's Pinterest page

Binghamton University Online Debate Platform powered by:

PHP MySQL SUIT