Maerowitz,+Max

Hey, I’m Max Maerowitz. I debated for Brophy College Prep from 06-2010. I believe every round should be judged without bias and every decision be made as objectively as possible. That being said, I’m open to every strategy regardless of the general bias against certain strategies on the circuit.

However, I do have some preconceptions about what arguments I am generally more persuaded to believe as objectively true over other arguments, for instance;

Topicality: If the negative team proves that there is a topical version of the Affirmative, I am more likely to be persuaded that the negatives interpretation is better; eliminating offense based on inclusion of the Affs case. I do not believe, in most cases, that CI: “Include our aff,” or “only our aff is topical” is a winning argument. Furthermore, reasonability is not about having a reasonably topical Aff. Similar to the view of other former Brophy debaters (Zane Waxman) about this, I believe reasonability is about having a reasonable counter-interpretation.

Ks: I am fairly familiar with critical literature as I generally went for critical arguments during my debate career. However even though I am familiar with critical literature, I will not do extra work for a team based on my own understanding of the arguments. I will vote for Kritiks without an alternative, or with an alternative that simply rejects the affirmative; however I am more persuaded by Kritiks which have a well thought out and well explained alternative. When an alternative simply states “vote neg to reject the aff,” I am more inclined to believe that the Alternative does not solve the problem identified, or the case. Therefore I believe that Alt not solving arguments are much more persuasive in this case.

CPs: Good debating is good debating. Simply stating that the CP solves 100% of the case is generally not a true or good argument. I will evaluate theory on an offense/defense paradigm. I do not necessarily believe that any type of counterplan is illegitimate, but if the affirmative wins that I particular counterplan would make debate impossible then a believe that in this instance the aff has proven that the CP is illegitimate.

DAs/Case: These arguments are relatively straight forward. Good debating on these arguments stems from good impact calc. Winning probability (reasonable likely hood), magnitude, and time frame (which is a part of probability), will generally get my ballot.

Explain to me why you should win the debate, and if you do a better job at this then the other team, you’ll win the debate.

Good Luck, Have Fun. I’m a college student and you can treat me as such – I like jokes and am not inclined to take offense to anything in good spirits.