Weiss,+Elliot

Elliot Weiss Iowa City West High School Iowa City, IA

11/05/10

I debated for four years in high school for Iowa City West and was a two-time TOC qualifier. After high school, I was an assistant policy coach and head policy coach for a combined total of two years. Since, my involvement in debate has been limited to judging; I tend to judge 20-30 rounds per year now, but this will be my first tournament on the topic (so naturally you ought to be wary of acronyms and topic-specific terminology that aren't common knowledge). I am currently a graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Michigan.

I appreciate debates where participants are having fun, and for me it's important that even in heated, competitive debates everyone behaves respectfully toward everyone else in the room. I think this should go unsaid, but we've all seen and/or been involved in debates that simply weren't fun and in all honesty, my most important stylistic preference in debate has everything to do with how you all treat each other, so I thought I'd mention it.

Like most judges, I tend to give speaker points on a scale of about 25-30, unless the tournament asks me to do otherwise. A "26" probably means you're doing something wrong and a "28.5" is quite respectable. Anything below a "25" or above a "29" means you just ruined or made my day, respectively. I listen, but somewhat passively, to CX, so you're unlikely to lose or earn points there. I do keep mental tabs on major concessions during CX, but you of course still have to make the arguments in a speech to get them on the flow.

I don't like having to read evidence after rounds. If I call evidence it means either that the debaters have contested what the card actually says, or that the debate was so devoid of clash that I have to look closely at the internal warrants of your evidence to determine the outcome. Ideally, you'd have explained those to me already, but if you can't do that then you're inviting judge intervention for better or worse.

Generally, I'm fine with any argument so long as you feel good running it (I like good arguments, but I like listening to debaters who know what they're doing more). I probably have a higher threshold for theory and I really dislike block dependent theory debates, especially in the rebuttals. Short of being dropped, such arguments won't win you rounds if I'm sitting in the back of the room. On the other hand, specific abuse scenarios can win you rounds on theory and if those scenarios are well articulated throughout the debate I'm perfectly willing to vote on them.

Disadvantages are cool, counterplans are cool. I would say that I almost subconsciously hold link stories on politics debates to a higher standard, but you should be fine if you have recent issue-specific links and internal links. I was primarily a critique debater in high school and I like critical arguments. That being said, this can't work against you if you're not particularly good at running critiques, even if it's a strategic position.

I enjoy a good topicality debate but since I haven't heard any rounds on the topic yet really make an effort to help me remember the wording of the resolution.

I guess this is a start. I know I'm leaving a lot of stuff out but if you have any specific questions just ask before the round and I'll be happy to clarify. I'll update this when I can.