Markowitz,+Reilly

Affiliations: Cypress Bay 2013 -

I will vote for any argument. The definition of the word "argument" is up for debate.

While I think that the "K vs. policy" distinction is arbitrary and polarizing, I am most familiar with "high theory" arguments. I'll do my best to throw my predispositions away before every debate.

I probably lean aff in framework vs. non-traditional aff debates. This is not to say that I'd prefer to vote for one side over the other, rather that I don't find most in-round abuse arguments particularly persuasive. I debated planless affs without reading framework for 2 years and I had a reasonably successful record. This is because I took the time to read the 1AC and craft a competitive strategy grounded in previous research. It's not that hard and it didn't kill my V2L. I don't think fairness is a terminal impact. It sounds more like an internal link to something else. On the other hand, I think some judges give common aff arguments vs. framework too much credit. I don't think that framework is genocide. I'm annoyed by non-traditional teams who make the same argument in 5 different places on the flow and label it as a distinct DA every time. I'm persuaded by abuse claims about self-serving counter-interpretations.

If you can't win that you should get to weigh the aff regardless of your failure to specify which side of the Time Cube the plan passes on, or if you can't beat the argument that rocks are people too, you definitely deserve to lose. If an argument is truly so ridiculous that it doesn't belong in debate, it should be easy to prove it wrong.

"Behind every image, something has disappeared. And that is the source of its fascination." Jean Baudrillard, //Why Hasn't Everything Already Disappeared?//