Veizi,+Elvis

Elvis Veizi

Lane Tech Loyola University Chicago


 * Background:**

Hi, my name is Elvis! I debated three years of policy at Lane Tech High School from 2005-2008. I'm currently a senior at Loyola double-majoring in Political Science and International Relations, and minoring in Economics. Throughout my undergraduate career I have been competing in NPTE/NPDA debate; I have been involved with debate in one way or another for the last 6-7 years of my life.

I will preface my judge philosophy in the way that most people do: when you debate in front of me, you are probably better off doing what you do best rather than trying to cater your strategy to my philosophy.


 * Some general thoughts...**

- First and foremost, I view debate as an organic activity; it grows and changes depending upon the way you present your arguments in the round. I try to remain as objective as possible and I attempt to adapt my evaluation of the debate round the way that I'm told by the debaters; however, don't expect me to be completely tabula-rassa.

- I am perfectly comfortable passing judgement on your arguments. If an argument does not meet a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation (see: claim, warrant, impact) then I may disregard it, or at least chuckle on the inside. By that you can also deduce that simply extending tags is not really a great form of argumentation/debate.

- I defer to good logic and reason. For example, if you are running a politics scenario that has a questionable uniqueness or link story--but you spend the majority of your speech blowing up your super duper nuclear war impacts--a good 2AR can probably make this d/a go away by offering less than 1 minute analysis explaining to me why they control uniqueness, and thus the direction of the link.

- Conceded arguments are true arguments, however, I tend to give some leeway if that argument is intuitively answered on another part of the flow.

- I'm completely fine with speed, but clarity is very important to me. If you are going too fast or if you are unclear I will let you know by vocally telling you so or by giving you funny looks. If that doesn't get your attention, I'll stop flowing or throw my pen at you. Just kidding... I won't throw my pen at you, but seriously, be clear; especially when you're reading your plan text/c.p text/alternative text/ and topicality/theory interpretations.


 * In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, this is the order of evaluation that I will use in coming to a decision:**


 * 1. Topicality** - I think that topicality precedes the merits of the affirmative advocacy and I also think that the resolution should be the focus of the debate. If you are affirmative, you should probably have a topical case that affirms the resolution. When answering a T, you should generally try to meet the interpretation and you should always have a counter-interpretation. I default to T being a question of competing interpretations, but if the affirmative wins that their interpretations solves your T impacts (i.e fairness or education) then I will probably not be compelled to vote neg on T. As far as the standards/voters debate goes, I think that both the Aff and the Neg should be comparing standards and voting issues the same way that you would provide comparative analysis on a disad. In-round abuse is not necessary for you to win on T, though if you can prove in-round abuse it will certainly help your story.


 * Specs -** I understand that these are useful to some strategies, but often I find them to be a waste of valuable debate time. If I don't see the strategic value of you reading your spec (i.e running a-spec with your x/o c.p) then I will be slightly disappointed. Nonetheless, you are free to run them however you like.


 * 2. Theory -** I evaluate theory like I evaluate T. I expect the debaters to offer me an interpretation/s or a counter-interpretation/s where necessary. There should be a discussion of how the team has effected/or could effect your in-round round strategy. These questions should be weighed out and compared by the debaters. Absent a compelling reason to reject the team, I will default to rejecting the argument.


 * 3. Critical Arguments** - I generally tend to prefer a good policy debate over a kritik debate, but feel free to run these in front of me. As a high school and college debater I have heard most K's and have run them at some point or another.


 * 4. Counter-plans** - are good for debate! I'm not really pre-disposed to vote **against** any counterplan, however, I may slightly err Aff on Delay and Process C.Ps. I think the Neg has the burden of proof to demonstrate how the C.P is competitive. Most people would agree that a good litmus test for determining a C.P's legitimacy is to look to specific solvency.


 * 5. Disads** - should be well carded and logically structured. I find it odd that most teams spend the majority of the debate focusing on the bottom end (impx) of the disad rather than winning the top end first. I have no problem voting on well articulated defense on the disad, though it's intuitive that you should read offense against it if you can.


 * 6. Case** - If you're Aff, I would discourage you from putting case on the bottom (during your rebuttal speech). I've seen way too many teams beat themselves by making this mistake and failing to extend the necessary arguments. I think Neg teams underutilize case attacks as viable strategies. In my opinion, a well thought out case strategy that involves solvency takeouts, defense, and offensive turns could easily win a debate round without anything else.

If you have any other questions, please, feel free to ask me before the round!