Steinmeyer,+Ted

Hey everybody-- I'm Ted! Quick bio: I am currently studying Economics and Political Science at Northwestern and I debated at Fenwick for four years, competing locally and on the national circuit in LD and Congress.


 * __Overview:__**

I heard this phrase a lot as a competitor, but it’s your round. While I need an evaluative mechanism to determine how I ought to be weighing offense, do what you want with your arguments and I’ll do my best to intervene as little as possible. That said, I can only flow and properly evaluate an argument if I can understand it. Essentially, if you are running something insanely complicated, slow down a bit and explain the argument. Also speed is fine. I’ll yell “clear” or “slow” when needed.


 * __Specifics:__**


 * Kritiks:**

Love these. I think they’re really interesting and often uncover some important arguments that otherwise would not be brought up in round. Performance is fine, as are other pre-fiat kritikal arguments. However, make sure your K has a framework as well as some sort of advocacy or alternative. It can be “reject aff,” but make sure it is there.


 * Larp/Policy:**

Sure go for it. I don't really have any specifics about this so if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.


 * Theory/Topicality:**

Use when there is actually abuse. I can understand using it as like a last resort for when your opponent runs something that you have absolutely no idea how to attack, but I think frivolous theory can sometimes get annoying. I default to CI, drop the arg, and yes for RVIs.

I am not a huge fan of disclosure. Unless your opponent was running something super off topic or was running a plan that was hyper specific or that had a totally random actor, I am more likely to vote against disclosure than for it.

Also, in a K vs. Theory debate, the Role of the Ballot is the highest level of the debate, however arguments can be made to why theory is a prior question in the consideration of offense under the RoB.


 * Tricks:**

Ugh. Dislike them but I will vote for them. Note that for these arguments my threshold for responses will be lower, so I am more likely to vote on a not so great response than I would normally be.


 * Philosophy/Framework:**

Yep, go for it-- I actually really enjoy Framework debates because I think the philosophical side of LD is too often forgotten. Two comments however: First, explain your argument in a way that is clear. I knew a bunch of debaters who would always run philosophy in a way that was really convoluted in order to just complicate the round—so probably don’t do that. Second, and this applies mainly to local circuit debaters-- make sure to keep in mind that the Value/VC itself isn't a voting issue, but rather a way to evaluate offense.


 * Speaker Points:**

I adjust how I give speakers based on the relative difficulty of the tournament. Essentially, speaker points are a reflection of the quality of your debate. I will generally round to the tenth of a point (unless tournament rules make me do otherwise). I definitely appreciate humor and unique arguments (which may subconsciously motivate me to increase your speaks), but ultimately smart in-round strategy and thorough arguments are the best way to get high speaks in front of me.


 * __Underview:__**

Debate is supposed to be fun, so relax and enjoy the round. Just don’t be a jerk or read anything that is insulting or offensive. If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask me in round. Looking forward to the debate!