Swanlek,+Aaron

First Year Grad Student at Wake

Debated Four Years at Clarion University

Quick notes

1. Be nice to the people you debate, being rude to them during/after will cost you speaker points and I will judge you as a base creature

2. Be topical. Instrumentality is up for debate. That being said, imagining myself as the ayatollah of rock and rolleh < Policy analyst Aaron.

3. Love big debates with a bunch of arguments made (Warrants > Cards).

4. Author qualification matters.

5. Love specific solvency for both the aff and the neg – Theoretical objections framed around specificity of solvency will also go a long way.

Rest of it.

Framework: Without instruction, I will look at it from the view of an informed citizen trying to decipher whether or not the question of the resolution is met by the affirmative or not. Predictability is good, as is topicality. The question of instrumentality is up for debate.

Theory: I like interesting theoretical arguments; this is usually garnered by teams being specific when it comes to theory. Example, conditionality by itself seems good, multiple worlds without advocacy of a permutation while the status quo always being logical seems bad.

Biases I can think of:

-Multiple conditional Cp’s or alternatives are ok.

-Multiple conditional worlds - combination of Alt’s/Cp’s seems problematic.

-International Fiat – no opinion

-Agent Cp’s – Boring

-Consult – Dirty/Cheating

Be topical. Reverse voters aren’t arguments. Substantial matters.

DA: Bigger = better.

Critiques: Fine – don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. More explanation = Better

Things you should probably not bother with in front of me (speaker point issue). Nietzsche is dead. Life has meaning. Good grades, cats doing dumb things, and beer.

30 – You blew my mind 29.5-29 Awesome 28.5-28 Above Average 27.5 – 27 Average 26.5 -26 Below Average 25ish – We need to talk.