Spies,+Stephanie

Stephanie Spies I debated for GBN in high school and I now debate for Northwestern University. I have coached GBN for the past four years and worked at the NU institute over the summer, so I am pretty familiar with this topic. I will vote on anything as long as it’s well-explained and supported by quality evidence. I will try to remain as unbiased as possible when judging, so you should go for the arguments you are good at and prepared for, not the ones you think I’ll vote on. That said, there are a few important things to keep in mind:
 * Just because an argument is “dropped” does not mean it is “true” --- in order for me to vote on an argument, you must explain it, impact it, and interact with the other side’s arguments
 * Comparative impact calculus is important for all arguments, whether you’re going for a DA or theory
 * Evidence comparison and indicting the other team’s arguments, whether it is the qualifications or warrants, will go a long way in resolving important questions in the debate and prevent judge intervention when calling for cards.

If you have any further questions, please defer to Professor Daniel Fitzmier's judge philosophy -- specifically:

"If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, that THEY have finally gotten to me, or that something really quite strange is afoot in Evanston, I encourage you to give me the old strikerooo; of course, drunken rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more dignified anonymity of your strike. In all seriousness, please enjoy your [TOC 2011]!!"