Steigerwald+Schnall,+Julia

I debated for Lexington High School, and I'm currently a freshman at Harvard. I watch a lot of television and I listen to a lot of music and I like conversations about education and art. feel free to talk to me about any of these things if you are so inclined.

fall 2014: I have seen very few debates on the oceans topic. please explain any highly technical terms!

most of my experience has been with traditional plan-based debate, though I obviously will do my best to evaluate the round as objectively as possible. my ballot will be written based on the arguments presented in the final speeches of the round. figure out what you're winning and use that to frame the debate. explain //why// your arguments should be prioritized and why your opponent's arguments are unimportant.

if neither team contests the role of the ballot, I will default to the following assumptions: the affirmative should affirm the resolution or some part of it, the negative should negate what the affirmative team says, and the role of the ballot is to determine which team has done a better job advancing their own arguments and answering those of their opponent.

aff - you presumably spent a lot of time writing your case. keep talking about it! neg - engage with the case as well as your own arguments. for both teams, your arguments will be much more compelling if you can present them in the context of your opponents' arguments.

your chances of winning the debate will be zero if you can't explain your arguments. don't expect me to vote on an argument I don't understand. that goes for absolutely everyone.

re: judge kick -- I won't kick things for you post-round unless your in-round interpretation explicitly says I should.

re: speaker points -- if you're debating in front of me, know that I'm looking for polite, professional behavior. regardless of the arguments you make in the debate, personal attacks directed at other debaters will count against you. incomprehensibility will count against you. wasting time in a significant & careless way will count against you.

debaters who make the round unusually enjoyable to watch and to judge will receive higher speaker points. this might mean shaping the atmosphere of the debate -- maybe by being funny, hopefully by being compelling. bad jokes are fine. a strong cross-x is a great way to up your points. having compelling arguments is a great way to up your points.

ask me questions before the round if you have any! julia.steigerwald@gmail.com