Rabinowitz,Kevin

My genuine belief:

Debate is a game. It doesn’t change the world…can’t be used to resist systems of domination…doesn’t liberate the oppressed…you get the point. Hence, when I judge, I make a qualified determination about who won the game. My ballot will never mean something more than that. Taken a step further, if you win the argument that my ballot actually does change the world, I will completely ignore the arguments in the debate and vote based solely on my ideal view of the world…99.9% of the time this will mean voting for the other team (Note: I am completely serious about this. If debaters in the community assume a role of changing the activity via radical frameworks, I believe that I have an obligation, as a judge, to do the same).

Now to the good stuff (ie – REAL debate):

Topicality:

It’s not always a voting issue…but I am so easily convinced that it is, you could probably make the argument using only sign language and I’d find it persuasive (despite not knowing any sign language). Topicality is as valid of an argument as any DA or Counterplan. “Stop whining” and “We’ve been running this all year” are not particularly compelling answers – especially since I don’t know anything about the topic this year and have judged ZERO debates. That said, I can also see why “competing interpretations” might be a bad/impossible framework for the Aff…I can be convinced either way and have no biases.

Disad/CP:

Specificity is valuable, but not essential. Uniqueness is important, but rarely enough to make or break the DA. Smart arguments against the internal link can significantly mitigate the DA, but rarely bring it to 0%. Any 2NC on a DA that doesn’t begin with both outweighing and turning the case is a waste of my time. If these arguments are carded, it lends significantly more credibility to the DA. The good/bad news for the neg is that I don’t know the common/generic arguments on this topic. If I’m seeing a new DA or CP that’s never been broken before, let me know so I can fully appreciate your strategy. You’ve (hopefully) put a lot of work into this tournament and it would be a shame to not reap the benefits.

K:

Don’t let my rant above scare you. While I don’t believe in changing the world or community with my ballot, I think kritiks can be very strategic for winning the game. 2NCs on a K that don’t include arguments that “Aff advantages don’t exist” and/or “the alt solves the root cause of their impacts” are a waste of my time. The bad news for the negative is that I am not very familiar with a lot of K literature, so more basic Aff arguments against the K are probably more persuasive to me than other judges. If your alt sounds like bull, and the Aff says its bull…you’re not in good shape. For example, if your alternative is to “resist capital” but you can’t explain what that resistance would entail, you will probably lose. I’m hesitant to sign on to a particular strategy if I don’t know what it does.

Theory:

If you go for theory, both teams will probably be sorry. That’s because I’ve never seen a theory debate that didn’t get so messy/blippy that it didn’t require a significant level of judge intervention. I’m biased for the neg on nearly every theoretical issue, but can easily be persuaded to the contrary. Note: If you go for theory - please don’t forget to impact it. Too many teams spend forever explaining why dispositionality is bad, without telling me why it’s a reason to actually reject the team rather than the counterplan.

Ways to increase speaker points:

C/Xs where you own your opponent. If you try and fail, you’ll probably lose speaker points…some people are honestly better off just waiving cross examinations.

Reading a lot of cards and proving that you devoted significant time, prior to the tournament, researching a particular strategy…even if it’s a generic.

Not using all of your prep time (if you don’t need it). Stand up 2ACs are expected. Stand up 1AR’s are moderately impressive. Stand up 2NCs are really impressive (unless its just on a K or something).

Final word about debate:

Debate is a game about strategy and execution. Sometimes you have a specific strategy against an Aff. Sometimes you go for the same K you’ve gone for all year. Sometimes you have to read spark, malthus, coercion, etc. Sometimes you have to go for theory. I’m open to all of it…just out debate the other team and you’ll be golden.