Miaskiewicz,+Grzegorz

Grzegorz Miaskiewicz
Debaters need to do the following in a debate round to get me to vote for them: 1. Set out the truth conditions for when the resolution is true or false. Or, provide an alternate justification for when they receive the ballot independent of the resolution's truth and successfully defend this justification. 2. Impact 1+ argument to said truth / victory conditions in #1. 3. Explain how their opponent's arguments do not meet the truth / victory conditions in #1.

The following caveats apply: 1. I will not vote for theory. This is now a substitute for making real arguments. Please respond to your opponents instead. 2. I will not vote for constitutionality, ever. Don't ask. I hate this argument. 3. If you are going to claim impacts, you should specify explicitly how these impacts are actually topical. You should also specify how you are fiating anything that causes anything. Otherwise, I will disregard all such impacts. 4. If you are going to claim solvency, you should specify explicitly how your solvency occurs and explicitly weigh your solvency against negative advantages/disadvantages in order for me to understand how affirming is better than negating. 5. I don't vote for extended one sentence blips and will not provide you with additional links that you claim in later speeches. 6. In the absence of a convincing proof or disproof of the resolution, I negate on presumption unless there are affirmative arguments to the contrary. 7. I prefer quality over quantity when it comes to arguments. 8. Anything I don't understand in the first speech you make the argument I will ignore for the rest of the round. I won't call for the cards after the rounds if your initial explanation of the cards sucked a$$. 9. I prefer syllogisms over arguments that claims things happen magically when we say a statement is true or false. 10. I am open to voting on critiques of linear time, spatiality and language.