Hey folks, I'm Aidan Gold. I use any pronouns (please mix up which ones you use if you can. I like they/them least if you must stick to one set.) Contact at aidancgold27@gmail.com

I debated LD for 2 years with Sequoyah High School.

LD Prefs:

Flex prep & open cross are fine. If you're concerned about if I'll vote on something ask me before the round.

1 -- LARP if it's good

2 -- Trad

3 -- Theory but only if it's actually abuse, Post-Fiat Ks, Phil

5 -- Pre-fiat K, T, Non-topical affs, Phil

6 or strike -- Trix, bad theory

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 violent arguments.

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

Tricks just aren't entertaining to me. You can read them, but I probably won't vote on them especially since I most likely won't hear them.

Theory

Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse. Ad-hom theory won't be evaluated. Reasonability is an option (though I default to counterinterps) especially if it's an accessibility issue (misgendering, bad case formatting, etc.) Read interps at conversational speed please.

Phil

Phil is really fun! I love phil rounds. The reason it's so low on my prefs is because phil is very hard for me to actually judge effectively. If you read phil, make everything as crystal clear as you can and minimize jargon.

If your "philosophy framework" is actually trix and you try and pull a fast one you will lose the round.

Topicality

I'm not too well versed in T but if you have to debate T in round just explain everything really clearly. It's a 5 on prefs but if you're against a wall just read it. Make impacts clear too.

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 K rounds are dynamic and I like them. I vote less on aff Ks generally but that shouldn't totally dissuade you.

Post-fiat is higher because I can't wrap my head around judging pre-fiat, not because pre-fiat is a worse kind of K. If you think you can read a pre-fiat K in front of me and I'll get it, go for it. I'd ask before the round first.

LARP

I find LARP rounds easy to judge, just explain why you're winning to me. If your warrants suck I'm not buying it, if your framework is incoherent or incongruent with your case I'm not buying it, etc. Read plan texts at conversational speed please.

Traditional (Read if you're novice)

Clash with your opponent, weigh, give voters, collapse on arguments in later speeches. The usual.

If you read arguments about the US constitution being the pinnacle of law and ethics, know that I am an openly queer judge and that you are upholding something that is weaponized against queer people

Read the card name before the card, flow is so much easier this way.

If you're both running the same framework don't do framework debate. Words in the resolution don't mean principles of good ("ought" is not a moral obligation.) Aff must solve in some way. Ask for numbers if and only if the impact is utilitarian, otherwise you look like a burger.

If your opponent is reading something more "circuit"y like a kritik then saying "no value/vc" or "this is some weird theory nonsense" will lose you speaks. I know the argument is difficult but engage with it as best you can and you'll keep your speaks. This happened to me a few times in my career, so I get it.

General principles

Extend all the way through speeches if you can, probably note what you're collapsing to specifically. If your warrants are really bad I'll tank speaks, especially if it's probability.

Various other things

Condo is fine but if you get turned you can't kick anymore and if your advocacies conflict with each other I'm ignoring all conflicts.

Disclosure good but disclosure theory is silly most of the time. If you have an actual impact I'll vote on it. If disclosure is read on someone who doesn't know what the wiki is I am not voting on it.

Newer debaters: I will not allow you to concede case. I did it far too many times in my career and I regretted it nearly every time. Do not give up, even if you're sure the round is a lost cause. You might be surprised by how well you engage with the opponent.

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

• Be funny
• Drip
• If you're against a novice try to give them a good round
• If you know you're gonna lose the round by the 2AR be funny about it

How to get bad speaks

• Aggression in CX, not like assertiveness but aggression.
• Spreading against novices
• Prioritizing speed over clarity

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