Marks,+David

4 years CPS, 4 years Dartmouth, 4th year coaching Bronx. I just graduated from law school.
 * __General Introduction:__**


 * This is a new philosophy.**


 * Generally, debate whatever you want as you want.** Just be nice.

__**The following is a list of specific subjects where you might benefit from knowing my feelings:**__

I used to hate it, but then I studied corporate law for 3 years. I'm no expert, but I enjoy these arguments.
 * 1. Economy** --- I love it.

Again, I did law school.... this could be a plus or minus for you.
 * 2. Legal Arguments**

Please specify your ground. I might vote on grounds-spec (I've never been given the opportunity, but it does seem fundamental to me).


 * 3. States CP** --- Probably fair.

I used to think it was utopian. Now I think there's tons of uniform, simultaneously pushed state law. It's not a done deal for the neg, but I'm not easily persuaded anymore by "no literature assumes state uniformity."

( The UCC governs almost all contract law, the Model Penal Code has unified much of state criminal law, and there's also the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Interstate Family Act, Uniform Partnership Act, Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, Uniform Child Custody Act, etc. There's almost no area of law that doesn't have a substantial component of uniformity which was pushed simultaneously through at least 20 state legislatures at the same time. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has drafted 200 uniform laws itself in almost every area of law. )

I am 10x more easily persuaded by "alt doesn't accomplish anything" than framework. If an alternative is utopian, that might be unfair.... but it's also COMPLETELY USELESS.
 * 4. Answering Kritiks** --- Use your common sense.

Imagining that capitalism doesn't exist doesn't mean capitalism doesn't exist. It's just daydreaming. Why can't affs just make common sense arguments???? What's with the framework cult?????

Defend your impact, attack the alt. Easiest way to my ballot against 95% of Kritiks.

If you insist on framework, the more utopian or vague the alternative is, the more likely I'll err aff. I'll probably also be persuaded that an alternative that's really a giant AIK is unfair.

Otherwise, I don't see what affs are so afraid of. If their "role of the ballot" loses to framework, it'll probably lose even faster to substantive attacks on its uselessness. I think the aff can pretty easily defend their plan by saying "you don't need the power to be the federal government to agree that it'd be good if the federal government did the plan," and "obsessive discursive nitpicking is vapid."

Generic K's are fine, __if you apply them to the aff's impacts__. I don't usually care much about the link, but I care a lot about whether the aff's impacts are true or not in comparison with the neg's impacts/alt. The more specific you are in indicting the aff's scenarios and internal links, the more likely I'll think the alternative can do something useful in informing policy analysis.
 * 5. Running Kritiks** --- Apply, apply, apply!


 * 6. Other theory issues:** Conditionality is probably ok, multiple conditional CP's might not be. Dispo is dumb. Consult justifies a variety of perms. I can go either way on Agent CP's/ASPEC.

A. How I evaluate it (unless told otherwise).** Like 99% of former Dartmouth debaters, I think in terms of interpretations and reasonable limits. Ground arguments are circular. That makes arguments about research burden and whether an interpretation is predictable of central importance. Focus on whether the interpretation matches the definition, or whether the interpretation is arbitrary and therefore unpredictable. I don't think T has anything to do with "abuse."
 * 7. Topicality.


 * B. Performance/Projects.** I've voted for them... but generally speaking I think plans are a good idea because I like preparation and clash, both of which require the predictability from topical plans.