Chappuis,+Claire


 * Background**: I debated at Eagan High School for four years (2004-2008). I was an assistant debate coach for Eagan 2008-2009 and have returned to that position for the 2012-2013 school year. I just graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in Neuroscience and am currently applying to Medical School.

I have been out of the activity for a while, so I appreciate clear and concise explanations of arguments as I may not be familiar with all of them. I am a huge stickler for clarity, so if you are going to go fast you should be very clear and slow slightly on tags and citations. I am a firm believer that debate should be a fun and educational activity, and as such I appreciate courtesy in debate round. If people are being really nasty I will dock speaker points.
 * General Thoughts**:

I take a very non-interventionist attitude to judging. I evaluate issues based on how they are presented in the round and it is your job to explain to me why I should vote for an argument. I will not vote because someone simply tells me an argument is a voting issue. I get frustrated if there is no clash in a debate and I really, really don't like calling cards at the end of the round. I love impact comparison, so the more of it there is the better. I believe this applies to theory and topicality arguments as well.

I was a policy maker debater, so I much prefer policy debates. I really, really, really do not like kritiks. I have voted for them in the past, but be forewarned that I am extremely biased towards policy arguments i.e. if two teams are about the same level I am much more persuaded by policy arguments and a policy framework. As a scientist I appreciate common sense arguments backed by evidence. The more someone can explain the warrants in a piece of evidence the better. Also, common sense will win me over rather than debate jargon.

At the end of the day, I want to witness people having fun and really engaging their opponent's arguments. Looking forward to hearing some great debates!