Liput,+Elizabeth

=**Generic Information:**= - Elli for short, full name Elizabeth. - She/Her pronouns. - Ecology, conservation, and environmental science background.

=**Debate Background:**= - Four years of high school national circuit policy (2005-2009), mostly around the Chicagoland area and the Midwest. - Attended camps at Dartmouth (2008), Michigan Classic (2007), Miami of Ohio (2006). - Assistant coach at Jones College Prep starting the 2015/16 season. - Judge national circuit and urban debate novice since 2015/16 season. Please feel free to look at my judging record on Tabroom.com (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=Liput). It is unfortunately not complete because not all tournaments I've judged have been hosted on Tabroom. I have been chosen to judge novice quarterfinals at several Chicago Debate League tournaments.

=**Paradigm Summary:**= I have judged a wide variety of arguments, including but not limited to exclusively policy, kritiks and kritikal affs, framework, and performance affirmatives. I like seeing diversity, breadth, and depth in argumentation. In no capacity do I wish to limit the debate space based on my own expertise. I am open-minded within reason, and will give serious consideration to everything presented in-round. I do my best to preclude my personal beliefs, morals, or interpretations from interfering with how I judge the round.

There is a caveat to my tabula rasa paradigm. I am best at evaluating standard policy because that is what I have greatest familiarity with. This translates to a better comprehension of arguments that exist primarily in the policy sphere, e.g. disadvantages, counterplans, case debate, topicality, and theory. I really enjoy good framework debate, even for basic impact calculus like deontology versus utilitarianism. Kritiks, kritical affirmatives, and performance are welcome, but adapt your explanation and articulation appropriately. Do not assume I have expert or even any familiarity with authors.

I flow consistently throughout the round as best I can, and make decisions based on what I hear and record. However, I'm not great at comprehending high-speed spreading. If you are fast, slow down and enunciate tags and cites so I can extend it on my flow and record more specific arguments. I appreciate numbering, sign-posting, and organization in speeches. I do not appreciate debaters depending on me to keep the round straight. It takes too much control out of the hands of the debater and into the judge's.

Across the board, be clear, clash with your opponents' arguments, and impact out your arguments in the context of the round. Most of all, be courteous and respectful toward all participants. I do not condone deliberate behavior, argumentation, or rhetoric that is racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, or abusive. At the very least it will lower speaker points. Debate should be an inclusive activity that develops critical thinking and communication. Have fun, and enjoy pitting your knowledge and preparation against your opponent. Best of luck!