Chapman,+Abbey

__**here are some thoughts i have:**__

 * If you would like to save all of us some time, please start an e-mail chain before the round: aacchapman@g.ucla.edu **


 * slow down on theory - will say slow twice, after that it is on you if i cannot flow it - i will miss your arguments and feel very comfortable disregarding them regardless of whats in the doc. **


 * please dont read false politics disads in front of me i will be angry i keep up with politics i will know if you are lying **


 * i am not particularly compelled by the insistence that the negative or affirmative answer t/k first in cx or theory arguments deriving from it **


 * i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own. **


 * one notable contradiction in my thinking - i am very receptive to semantics bad claims on t (not into nebel t) but also pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this doesnt mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args.............) **


 * if you suspect that i may need to look at interps/counter interps you read, those should be flashed before the speech [likely applies to perms as well]- i will not look at interps that are written down at the end of the round and will just evaluate the t debate based on what i have written on my flow. **

=
If an evidence ethics claim happens in the round, ie a debater says "this is an evidence ethics claim, its very serious, and its a reason they should lose" I will stop the round and evaluate the claim myself. If the claim is not true - the person that brought about the claim will lose. i will follow tournament rules on the issue.=====

=
I think most K's and theory shells are just internal links to education - so i'd like to see the weighing as to which comes first on that level, although I will listen to other arguments =====

=
5) if you want to win off offense on a counter interp or your opponents shell or an 'offensive counter interp', you need to justify it. This normally entails an RVI, but I suppose could be done differently. =====

=
I have come to think that I have a higher threshold than most people on things 'needing' to be extended. I.e. if you want to win off theory, you should extend the impact/voter. If you want to leverage the aff against a k, you need to clearly explain what the aff offense is in the first place. =====

=
SLOW DOWN ON TAGS - i'm a seasoned debate veteran so it'll look like I'm paying attention but don't let that fool you into thinking I am - Ted Cruz is also a seasoned debate veteran and the only thing he pays is whatever it costs to keep women and minorities excluded =====


 * Overview/MISC**

=
3) i will presume negative if they defends the status quo - if they read a cp or a kritik, then presumption shifts to the affirmative, you can make arguments contesting this though===== 4) I don't care if you sit or stand

=
I **strongly** believe in trigger warnings. Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual/domestic violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If you do not read a trigger warning, you start the round with a 25. If someone in round is triggered, and there was not an appropriate trigger warning, I will take the action I feel is best. =====

=
The question for what necessitates is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, ** debate is (or should be) a 'safe space' **, and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round. =====

=
[|https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6] =====