Rubin,+Arthur

Arthur Rubin Former high school LD Debater Former parliamentary style debater for 4 years at Yale University

I see the role of the judge as evaluating the fundamental substantive merits in the argument presented, and not only the technical ability of the debater to compose an argument, when that argument is not sufficiently grounded in reality and common sense. Ultimately the goal of debate is to perfect one’s ability to make a compelling argument in the real world, and not simply to convey as much information in as short a time frame as is possible, or to create “tricky” or “off the run” arguments designed primarily to frustrate their opponent’s ability to respond, rather than to be intrinsically persuasive. When possible and appropriate, the judge ought to offer substantive reactions to the arguments made in a “real world” context, in addition to identifying technical areas for improvement or logical flaws in the argument presented.

While the substance of the arguments presented, and the debaters’ ability to adequately respond to the arguments presented, is paramount, I also feel that the care taken to deliver arguments in a clear, compelling voice with appropriate emotion and emphasis, is very important; I don’t feel that sheer volume of arguments delivered at lightning speed should always win the day against well-crafted and well delivered positions that may not cover as much ground as the other side.

Decorum and civility are important to me during the cross X. I am bothered by debaters who constantly talk over their opponents and don’t know when to let the other side speak their piece.

While it is important to me that both sides show they’ve done their research and know how to deploy it during their debates, I don’t think that debates are won by constantly calling out their opponents for the source of their arguments, unless the challenging side can quickly and firmly show that the evidence cited by their opponents is manifestly false. Challenging an opponents’ evidence merely on a suspicion that it doesn’t sound right without some concrete source to refute it is not, to me, the path to victory.

In the end, I like to see a position presented that stands up in a “real world” evaluation and isn’t only technically sound, detached from being able to persuade that a given position is not only logical and well-argued, but is also reasonable.