Jack Rubenstein Paradigm

Last changed 10/24 3:01P EST

Pine Crest School '18

Duke University '22

Put me on the email chain please: rubensteinjack77@gmail.com

Quick thoughts:

-Can’t flow what I can’t understand

-Debate the case, 2A’s really sometimes don’t know how to defend their own aff’s at the slightest pushback (if you are aff, please don’t be one of these teams)

-I don’t know much about the topic, so don’t expect me to be well-versed on the intricacies of most of your arguments, especially T.

-Make it clear which arguments are important in the debate. You may not get the decision you want if the 2NR/2AR are just a collection of equally emphasized arguments.

-I will obviously read evidence.

-Conditionality is probably good, but that doesn’t mean you should read 5 conditional advocacies. If you make conditionality bad arguments, contextualizing them to the round will be more persuasive than potential abuse styled arguments.

-Evidence comparison is important and would be appreciated.

-The affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States Federal Government. Fairness is an impact, and a good one. I find that a TVA or “Do it on the Neg” will usually mitigate most aff offense in T-USFG/Framework debates.

Affirmatives: I love a really good affirmative. Having a really good one means all parts of it are backed by sound evidence, especially your internal links. You give me very little reason to care about a U.S.-China War, for example, if your impact card is a two sentence, terribly highlighted card from some random blog.

Counterplans: I will never vote against a CP on face just because it is a Process CP, Consult CP, etc. However, an aff team who invests in nuanced theory arguments can persuade me to reject these types of CP’s. Same goes for “Perm do the CP” against these types of questionably competitive CP’s. The more specific a CP is, the more legitimate it tends to be in my mind, and the more effective it will likely be in mitigating aff offense. Invest time in your net benefit: it can outweigh the aff case even if the aff team wins a solvency deficit. Planks shouldn’t all be conditional if you have a 12 plank CP.

Disads: Read a link in the 1NC. You will not get the speaker points you are hoping for if the 1NC is 9 off, and 4 DA’s without evidence-based links. Have well-developed “DA turns case” arguments. Aff team please don’t ignore these arguments; they can be very persuasive when it comes time to make a decision.

Topicality: I tend to side towards reasonability based arguments, especially when teams just spread through their blocks on this question. If you actually substantively debate this issue, however, I could easily see myself using a lens of competing interpretations. T arguments against affs that are generally accepted as core of the topic will struggle to find much offense and won’t be very persuasive. Again, I have limited knowledge of the topic, so I will be playing catch up here, but don’t let that stop you from going for it if T is your thing. I’ll happily vote for a well-developed T argument.

Critiques: I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, etc., but I’m here for anything else. Unless one team really messes up, I find that framework/ROB debates end up being pretty meaningless. I will likely weigh the K versus the Aff, which means both teams should be doing considerable impact work. Good K debates always have well-impacted out links. Explain how the alt would function, and how it interacts with the affirmative case. Many teams fail to do this, and I have little interest in voting for a non-unique DA.

I hate judges who are on facebook or gchat and don’t pay attention to CX, or any other part of the debate. You have 100 percent of my attention, so use it.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VCX R6 Wayzata HR Greenhill LW Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VCX R5 Gulliver Prep GB Shawnee Mission East AW Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R3 West Des Moines Valley KD Little Rock Central AK Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R2 Jones CP KO Niles North KR Neg Neg on a 2-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 JCXRR R1 Cypress Bay AK Lane Tech JT Aff Aff on a 2-0
Wake Forest Fall Classic 10/20/2018 Var R6 Cosby AC Northview RJ Neg
Wake Forest Fall Classic 10/20/2018 Var R4 Strath Haven LZ Niles West LB Aff
Wake Forest Fall Classic 10/20/2018 Var R3 Northview YP Woodlands Independent MR Neg
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 11/14/2015 NCX R4 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart PR Berkeley Prep KS Neg
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 11/14/2015 NCX R3 Cypress Bay KB Pine Crest Preparatory GM Aff
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 11/14/2015 NCX R2 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart HS Berkeley Prep DE Aff
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 11/14/2015 NCX R1 Pine Crest Preparatory HD Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart AD Neg