Schellenberger,+Carrie

I'm an undergrad at UPenn. I did LD for 4 years in NC, competing both locally and on the national level. I know a fair bit of philosophy and statistics; don't __expect__ me to know everything about the philosophers you might reference when reading your case, however don't grossly misrepresent a major name (Kant, Locke, Mill, etc.) or BS statistics because I will notice.

Don't make it a value-based debate. Obviously I need a value to weigh the round through, however if you can agree on one quickly, I will be a happy camper. Of course, if you can't link through a framework, don't accept it but I absolutely hate having to decide a debate solely based on what value I pick (because each side would only link through its own).

I value a few strong arguments over many, weak, quickly-read arguments. I can understand a brisk pace but prefer clarity over speed. Translation: I am a traditional judge.

I will flow, but, slowing down at important points (like contention tag lines), will help me get all of your points. If you talk too fast and I miss an argument, that only hurts you. I will not interrupt you to tell you to slow down.

I like clear voters given in the last speech for each side.

Also be decent to each other. **Any ad hominem attacks will lose you points**. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Pet Peeve: "Begging the question" and "Raising a question" are not the same thing. Please don't confuse them. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism are different. Util is a subset of Consequentialism. Don't treat them as synonyms

Don't expect me to make logical connections for you. It's your job to make the argument and as much as I might agree with what's in your head, I can't vote on it unless you say it out loud.