Liipfert,+Todd

=**Todd Liipfert**=

**UPDATED PARADIGM**
November 2014

I was involved in debate for 8 years. I debated for Strake for four years and graduated in 2008. I debated both locally around Houston and at various TOC tournaments. I made it to out-rounds of both TFA State and TOC, among other tournaments during the year. I coached Walt Whitman for two years and then Strake for two years. My students won several local and TOC tournaments and frequently reached TOC out-rounds. I taught various labs at VBI and UNT's Mean Green for five years, including top labs and co-directing focus weeks. In 2012, I moved to Hong Kong and haven't had much interaction with LD debate since.
 * History:**

The keys to debating in front of me are __argument quality__ and __decision calculus__. I'm familiar with K's, DA's, Plans, Counterplans, Theory, etc. or at least with what those looked like in 2012. I've seen amazing debaters who are very policy-util focused and others who are extremely framework-based. I don't particularly care what your case organization style is (you're not going to get extra points because you call an argument a K or a CP instead of a regular case and I won't hold any of that against you either), but I do care that you are clearly warranting and impacting whatever your arguments are to a clear standard for me to make a decision (__argument quality__). Then, explain and warrant why that standard is the primary one that I should use to evaluate the round (__decision calculus__).
 * How to Debate in Front of Me:**

1. //Are you good with speed?// I will listen and try to flow every debate as best as I can. It's up to you to be clear and deliver your arguments effectively. Please slow down for author names and tags. 2. //Will you say clear?// Sure, once or twice. Realize that trying to toe the line right on the edge of when I will say it will likely mean that I'm going to dock your speaks. If I say clear, I'm definitely docking your speaks. 3. //Are there any arguments you won't listen to?// No, not //prima facie// but arguments that seek to be overly confusing or are horrifically offensive aren't going to be that hard for your opponent to beat. 4. //How do I get high speaks////?// Clearly impacting your arguments and taking some time at the end of your rebuttals to explain the decision calculus is a good start. Also, don't think that asking this question is going to guilt me into giving you higher speaks. 5. //Do you view debate/theory as comparative worlds or truth testing/competing interpretations or reasonability?// I default to comparative worlds and competing interpretations, but I'm open to hearing arguments in your decision calculus as to why I should change from my default in the round. These terms only became a thing after I had debated and while I was coaching. I've never been a huge fan of over thinking about paradigms. Just debate how you want and I will do my best to figure it out. If you're clear, you'll likely not need to worry.
 * Common Annoying Questions:** (answered here, so you don't have to ask in round)


 * Comments:**
 * RFD** - I will usually give an RFD and comments after I have made my decision. I am happy to speak with either debater in the round about my decision. If you AND your coach want to talk, I'll do that after we've left the room so as not to keep anyone hostage to an awkward situation.
 * Flowing** -- I was never very good at writing everything down as a debater or frequent judge. It's likely that my flowing and handwriting have gotten worse since leaving the activity for a while.
 * Good Debate** -- Debates should be engaging for the debaters involved. If you're having a good time and interested in what you're talking about and doing, then I likely will be too. This will likely result in higher speaks and my having a better view of your arguments. The rounds don't have to be super serious or super funny in front of me, whichever you're more comfortable with is fine. However, I absolutely hate when one competitor makes another feel uncomfortable. So, I'd recommend against being rude, condescending, or making jokes at the expense of your opponent.

Anything else, just ask.

OLD PARADIGM
(in case you're interested)

Short version: The easiest thing that debaters can do in front of me to win is present a smart, positional framework that interacts with their offense well and is used strategically through the round. Substantive argumentation between the two frameworks presented (aff and neg) gains highest speaks, but I guess theory is acceptable if you need to. Honestly, I find straight up policy evidence debates with no development of why particular impacts are more important than others to be hard to evaluate. I frequently don't vote on poorly substantiated policy linked advantages because they are precluded by the opponent's framework which he has offense to. Also, speaks are assigned on how well I think that you are managing arguments in the round and whether I can understand you.

I debated for Strake Jesuit for four years and graduated in 2008. I am now an assistant debate coach at Walt Whitman. I debated on both the local Texas circuit and the national circuit. I understand most jargon, how to flow, reasonable speed, etc. I understand how most case structures work. When judging, my biggest problem is a lack of weighing between arguments and analysis as to which argument comes first and why. I usually find my self looking between two arguments at the end of the round and having to make some decision apart from the flow to prefer one. If you want high speaks from me, weighing explicitly to a weighing standard is the best way to go. I don't think I have a prejudice against most types of off-case, though hearing a very generic off case that is run on every topic will not get you high speaks. With regards to theory, I evaluate theory based on a competing interpretation paradigm for theory. However, you still have to provide a link to my ballot from the voter for me to vote pre-substance. Lastly, when I debated, I mainly stuck to stock arguments and frameworks on the topic rather than pomo or anything like that. Not that I have a prejudice against them, but I do sometimes have a harder time understanding them and voting off of them. I WILL NOT vote off of an argument that I do not understand and its your job to convey your message. FURTHERMORE, (POST Greenhill '09) I was in NO WAY a Kritik debater. I really have a hard time understanding critical authors read REALLY fast with no slowing down. That being said, so long as you are slowing down enough every once in a while to allow me to process what you are saying and explaining the way that I evaluate the arguments, I will vote. In absence of this, I will have a hard time voting for you and will probably do what you would refer to as intervention solely because I am REALLY confused.

If you have any other questions, ask me at the tournament or before the round starts. I will also be happy to discuss the round after I have given my RFD if you have any questions.

Also, in terms of how I view the resolution I believe that it is a truth statement to be proven true by the affirmative and not true by the negative. I default to the frameworks presented by the debaters however, which means that if one person runs truth testing and the other comparative worlds, the debaters should argue about which is preferable, which I will then use to vote on rather than having to just pick one. As a corollary, I generally default negative but am open to presume aff arguments as well. I try to approach the round through any framework that you give me and if your framework is comparative worldview based, I will vote that way. I just think that theory is a sufficient check on abusive truth-testing negative interpretations and arguments.

For TOC: Since this is my paradigm, I am just throwing it out there that I would really prefer not to hear disclosure theory arguments or performative arguments. While I am hesitant to blatantly refuse to vote on them, it is not something I have any particular interest in hearing in a round and I find myself uncomfortable with the position that such arguments put opponents in. I don't think that anyone should have to defend that sexism in debate is good or to defend themselves against personal attacks on their coaches. If you run them, expect low speaks. last updated: 4/2010