Rubin,+David

Pine Crest '12 Cornell '16

Note: I haven't done much work on the current topic, so refrain from acronyms and realize that i might not know what you're talking about absent an explanation


 * Quickly**

I obviously have my own opinions of certain debate arguments, but those should not influence the arguments you make (unless they are offensive). Do what you want, explain and execute, and you will be ok. My predispositions should not dissuade you from making the arguments that you are most comfortable with or believe will give you a better chance of winning

Framing Issues - Clarity over speed - Not really sure how to quantify tech over truth or vice versa - both are important, and when combined, win rounds

**Longer Version** T: - reasonability is persuasive - if the aff doesn’t make debate impossible why should i vote negative? (note: "our aff is reasonably topical" is not a good argument, "the counter-interpretation of the topic is reasonable" is a good argument) - “our definition is more qualified” doesn’t cut it – you have to explain why your interpretation of the topic would provide the best world to debate in - Kritiks of T won’t get you anywhere – please refrain - ASPEC – I think this is a dumb arg but **CAN** (not very easily) be persuaded otherwise - Run it like a da, do impact calc and identify your links - I like innovative T arguments and believe that T is a huge equalizer in debate

Theory: - I probably err neg on most counterplan theory questions - Condo – one conditional option isn't horrible in my book, multiple conditional advocacies makes condo more viable - Most other theory arguments are generally reasons to reject the argument not the team. A shoddy 5 second 1ar extension of “no neg fiat – voter” will get you nowhere – same goes for the neg: “multiple perms bad – voter” doesn’t cut it. - Performative contradictions are unrealistic, not strategic, and probably uneducational

Das - On topics with specific disads - i prefer those debates over than politics or spending because of specificity of analysis and evidence. I think they are slightly more realistic and educational, but both debates are generally interesting to listen to and I'll still be very happy with a good politics debate. - IMPACT CALCULUS IS KEY – weighing the impacts themselves, risk assessment, etc. I need a reason to vote neg, not to read cards - Meta-level framing args are super helpful in resolving debates – tell me how your impacts interact with the other team’s!!! - I don't believe there is a generic statement to be made about the link controlling the direction of the disadvantage or the uniquness controlling the direction - i believe this is dependent on the round at hand, the arguments advanced and the evidence read. - somebody can win 0% risk of a da or an advantage

Cps - I generally like multi plank adv cps, specific PICs, any cp that is really specific to the aff you’re debating are super educational the best debates to watch - I do not think that counter plans that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan are legitimate – again defaults can change especially against new affs - Agent counterplans are probably legitimate, but not competitive - I don’t think international fiat or object fiat are legitimate - a solvency advocate may help persuade me otherwise - Counterplans have to be both textually and functionally competitive - I don't think word PICs are competitive - Counterplans that I would normally think are illegitimate/not competitive (i.e. Recommendations, Conditions, Consult, Appropriations) could be ok if they have a solvency advocate that contextualizes the cp in terms of the aff, NOT a card that says "the power of the purse belongs to congress" (thanks for the fyi).

Ks - still not my favorite, but i'm becoming more sympathetic to this area of argumentation - I generally think roleplaying is good and that I am a policymaker - Even if you win your framework it doesn’t necessarily mean you win…you have to answer the aff’s arguments - EXPLAIN YOUR ALT – I cannot stress this enough. I want to know what I am voting for. How does your alternative world resolve any of your impacts or the affs? - Don’t throw around buzzwords – explain your arguments to me (I will be much happier) - If you’re aff vs the k “case outweighs” args will get you far with me. - Watch out for the k tricks - I think k affs are fine, but the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan - debate is good - Permutations...please

Performance - The affirmative’s job is to affirm the resolution - Switchside debate is a persuasive framework argument

Paperless - I will not take prep time for jumping speeches (unless you take an obscenely long time) - Do not prep during jumping time - that's not cool - Please pay attention to the speaker not the computer – people have all too many times responded to arguments not made in the speech or dropped args that weren’t on the computer - if i notice either of the aforementioned, your speaker points will be adversely affected

Things that can up your speaker points - FUNNY jokes – don’t try to be funny if you’re not (like me) - Good cross x’s (crossx is binding) and application of them to speeches - Being clear - Understanding your arguments and being able to convey them to me - Uber-specific strats usually provide the most interesting and educational debates – they will get you better speaker points - good evidence means that you invest time into the activity, I will reward good evidence

If you are caught cheating (clipping cards, cross-reading, etc.) you will automatically lose and be reported to your coach and the tournament – 0 speaker points for both persons on the cheating team Don't make arguments that are offensive and morally reprehensible - it's not necessary to win, it creates an awkward experience, and it won't end well