Herrmann,+Emily

I debated LD for two years for Benilde-St. Margaret’s school in St. Louis Park, MN, before leaving my senior year to spend more time on my engineering work. I did speech and congress all four years of high school (IX/DX, OO, discussion). I’m now a freshman at University of Wisconsin – Madison studying chemical engineering.

Please come find me if you have any questions or ask before the round starts. I’m probably the least intimidating person ever.

I definitely default to comparative worlds and arguments that fall under that realm will be the arguments that I am most comfortable with. I am open to other arguments, however.
 * Decision Calculus/General Overview/Random Important Things: **

I won’t vote for arguments I don’t understand. See the Critical Arguments/Philosophy section in particular.

Please be specific with every argument you make. I don’t want to make the links for you or make assumptions. They may not go in your favor.

Debate the topic and your speaks will go up. Period. This is a fascinating topic with great arguments both philosophical and empirical. I want to hear them.

Also, the fact that I’m an engineering major should maybe hint to what type of arguments I find interesting (math, net benefits, etc.).

I am not wedded to a value-criterion framework and nor any other framework. //However//, I need very very very clear way to frame the round. That can take a variety of forms, just make it obvious.
 * Framework: **

Clean and simple frameworks are your friends.

Deliberately tricky arguments in the framework (or otherwise) are not your friends.

Number one rule: //please// do not assume I’ve read //any// philosophy. I never liked it much, didn’t debate with very heavy philosophical material, and will never take a philosophy class in college or anything like it. That means I really need you to be very explicit with any philosophical arguments. I’m not saying that I won’t vote on them, or that I’m philosophically illiterate. I’m saying that it’s definitely not my strong suit.
 * Critical Arguments/Philosophy: **

I am not very well versed in theory and did not debate much with it when I debated. I only want to hear theory if there’s a clear violation. Don’t run it just to have another argument on the flow or you’ll see the ramifications in your speaks. I will still listen to it and will vote for it if you win it. I just don’t want to hear it unnecessarily.
 * Theory: **

It’s been a little while since I’ve been in the activity (except occasionally judging), so I’m not as good with speed as I used to be. That being said, unless you are being super unclear or fast, I’ll probably understand you. Take the absolute top speed that you’d hear on the circuit and drop it down a couple notches and that should be fine. Plus, general speed rules definitely apply: use lots of clarity, slow down for authors/important points/tough material, and don’t be an ass to an opponent who isn’t used to speed.
 * Speed: **

Most people would say that I’m fairly generous with speaker points. I’m going to steal Jon Slater’s scale, and you can assume I’ll be slightly nicer.
 * Speaker Points: **

30: Incredible. You should definitely be a top competitor at the tournament.

29: Excellent. You successfully executed a smart strategy and should make it far in the tournament.

28: Great. There were some minor flaws, but overall a good performance. You will have a shot at clearing.

27: Adequate. You did what you needed to do, but in an inefficient or unclear way. You may might clear.

26: Below Average. You probably won’t clear

25: Poor. You have things you need to significantly improve upon before you’ll have a chance of clearing.

<25: You were offensive in round.