Sawicky,+Alden

Hey, I'm Alden Sawicky. I debated for a few years at Gig Harbor and am now doing some judging off and on.

I'm cool with telling you or specifying anything that's posted here. Just ask. I'm usually pretty nice.

I'll vote on any argument that has reasons to why that argument leads you to winning. This means impacting. I like understanding how your material works. This means I like to see a clear tie back to violations if you're running theory, flaws in the resolution or the aff world if you're running a K, ect. I'm fine with speed. I actually have an affinity for it. Clarity is important. I'll say clear a few times if you're unclear, and you might want to revisit the seconds beforehand to make sure I caught everything. If you're explaining something super dense or a critical issue, make sure I catch it. Enunciate tags, interps, advocacies, voters, and analytical args. Give me stuff to vote on. If the round is particularly messy, voters are good.

If you're running alternative styled cases or running against them, I do look at things in order indicated within the cases or made within round. If you're going to argue against these style of cases you should do it correctly and not just default to theory. I will listen to args against these that aren't super traditional however, as long as it's good.

Basically, if it's good, I like it.

What I'm cool with: Flex prep, aggressive cross ex, Speed, deep philosophy, K's, theory, plans, counterplans, humor ect.

What I'm not cool with: Being unnecessarily rude, blippy args, unwarranted theory that is run for little to no reason.

How to get a 30: run something really cool, argue beautifully, weigh, absolutely crush your opponent, but be as cordial as possible.