Chappell,+Callie

I am a debater for the University of Michigan and will be graduating in 2017. Before Michigan, I debated for Traverse City Central High School from 2010-2013.

One of the things I find so amazing about this activity is the agency it gives to the debaters who participate in it. However, as they say, "with great power comes great responsibility." You have the ability to debate the rules/integrity of the activity, so please make sure you stay true to the model of debate in which you would like to be a part. What does this mean? Respect your opponents. Don't clip cards. And for goodness' sake, don't tell a female debater to "calm down." Make each debate one that you would be proud to show to a novice on your team.

I have been a primarily policy debater. I love process CPs, the warming debate, and going for politics in the 2nr. I also really love anthro. Most of my experience is in debating policy, so I am probably a better judge for these debates. That being said, I also have a lot of respect for the kritik and identity arguments. I think these arguments are important aspects of modern policy debate and should be fostered and supported. Also, in many ways they are much more true/interesting than traditional policy arguments. But then again, I am a philosophy major/minor, so I may be bias. You can definitely read these arguments in front of me, but because I am less well-versed on the debate parts of the literature, you may have to do more explaining than for the typical "k hack judge." That being said, since I'm less likely to verify info on past knowledge, I am more easily persuaded by clear explanations, aff-specific analysis, and persuasive speaking. I am definitely not a judge who always defaults that the aff outweighs. In fact, with questions of root cause/serial policy failure/ the floating pik, I probably lean neg. So 1as, watch out for block shenanigans on the K.

Theory-- 1. Process CPs are probably good. I think understanding governmental processes are good (for example, I spent a bunch of time this summer working in a law office doing a bunch of stuff I learned about doing process CP research) but I also know it sucks being aff against these, so I definitely am receptive to process CPs theory. 2. Topicality-- Although I like process CPs, I really despise topicality debates. I've gone for T plenty and I'll vote on it, but I personally don't find these debates quite as intuitively interesting. 3. Condo-- Condo is probably good, however, no one is really very good at explaining why. Have a clever interpretation/counterinterp and impact it based on how your interpretation interacts with your opponent's. I'm not sure why this doesn't happen more.