Hey folks, I'm Aidan Gold. Contact at aidancgold27@gmail.com

I debated for 2 years at Sequoyah. As a debater, I had moderate success, but I always punched too far up and kept losing to new stuff. Now, after I've spent months of my life studying cases, I'm confident in my judging.

TL;DR Prefs:

Flex prep & open cross are fine.

1 -- Theory, LARP, T, K negs

2 -- K affs, phil, Trad

4 -- Cool tricks, tricky phil

6 -- Bad tricks

The long version

I'll evaluate anything so long as it's warranted and isn't violent (x-ist).

Tricks are tough with me because I might miss them, especially if they're spread.

Non Negotiables

Automatic L for intentionally x-ist args, L20 for ableism in particular.

If someone misgenders someone else instant L25 no questions.

One winner one loser.

If you read "eval after x speech" you have to win it after the round.

Speed

Speed's fine, but clarity first. If I can't understand what you're saying I'll give you three "clears" then I'm not flowing it and I'll start playing Minecraft.

Gut check yourself. If you're against a novice don't spread them out, that's mean.

Send the doc if it's dense analytics or paraphrased.

Tricks/Friv Theory

If the trick or shell is funny I'll vote on it. If it isn't I'll still vote on it but you'll lose speaks.

Funny: A-Z Spec (classic), Dance Theory, "Give me the ballot b/c I'd be happy"

Unfunny: AFC, Disclosure unless the aff is weird, then disclosure is legit.

Kritiks

I'll evaluate any K if it's explained well. Not too familiar with pomo and I've not read that much K lit, but I like Ks. If you're aff I'll vote on Ks less but that's just because T is very convincing.

General principles

Extend all the way through speeches if you can, probably note what you're collapsing to specifically. If your warrants are bad I'll tank speaks, especially if it's probability. I'll probably not even flow unwarranted probability impacts.

Prefs

Again, I'll vote on anything, but below are what I'll default to.

No RVIs, Yes CIs, presumption goes neg, T>t>K>Substance, TT>comparative worlds.

How to get good speaks

• Good music, good jokes
• Drip
• Make references to Like A Dragon or Good Will Hunting for +0.5 speaks.
• If you're against a novice, give them a good round
• If you know you're gonna lose the round by the 2AR collapse to "I'm gonna go get water" during the speech.

How to get bad speaks

• Aggression in CX, not like assertiveness but aggression.
• Spreading against novices
• Bad spreading

Hey! I’m Olivia and I’ve been debating PF for the past three years at Carrollton HS. 

General rules: 

I can handle speed, but please don't spread, because I think that ruins the spirit of debate. The point of debate is to win a civil argument, not to say so many things that your opponent can't respond to half.

I like to see some clash, but do not under any circumstances be mean!! There is a huge difference between being “aggressive” in crossfire and just being mean. Don’t be mean.

With cross-fire, I do not usually flow it, but if you say something spicy I will 100% write it down. If you're witty that will get you some speaker points, but remember: do not be mean!! Mean bad, witty good. 

Truth > Tech!! Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I looove impact calculus. That being said, don’t just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it’s more probable.

Don’t bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it is really an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches. 

There is a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a dope piece of evidence tell me why it's a goldmine.

Overall, I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot. If I walk out of a round and don’t learn anything, then there’s a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me REALLY care about the topic, then you’ve done a fantastic job. 

p.s add some cool marvel puns and/or lines for some extra speaker points ;) 

LD:

Framework: The framework should consist of a Value and a Value Criterion. No exceptions. LD is a debate form that requires those two key aspects of the debate and it is not fair for your opponent to deal with you not having one or the other (I only have this here because I've had previous situations). In the framework, I must be able to understand what your case is about. Observations are ok if they are necessary for clarity which they normally are if you have one in the first place.

Body of the Case: Please don’t run K’s or Counter-plans, that's just my preference I prefer traditional for the most part. However, if you are running either of those, just try to be clear so I know what your argument is. I want to be able to judge you fairly on your arguments.

Voting: Fairly standard, make sure you address your opponent’s case and framework. Give yourself time to defend your arguments. Noting special here.

Lastly, I only put this here because I’ve had it happen.DO NOT ATTACK THE PERSON OF YOUR OPPONENT you can attack the case, the air we breathe, the space we stand in, the 4 walls around us but if you feel the need to attack your opponent’s character don’t. I expect you to respect your opponent this is not the place for “debate me bro” nonsense.

TLDR; I'm a traditional judge

Speech events:

My main thing is just to make sure you speak clearly no matter the event. Given an online format if audio quality dips at any point I'll take that into consideration and if it had any information I'll ask about it at the end as it was out of your control and I don't want to miss a point of your speech.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com