Spector,+Ryan

Glenbrook North High School '15 Dartmouth College '19 Last updated: 14 December 2017


 * I don't care what arguments you read. I care** //**how well**// **you debate. Accordingly, listed below are the principles I use when I judge.**

Tech __determines__ truth. This has three implications: 1. What and how you argue is __nearly always__ more important than the evidence you read. 2. I will only evaluate what is on the flow, and accordingly, the only predisposition I have is line-by-line. Keep the flow clean and organized. 3. Dropped arguments are true arguments. If they weren't, people wouldn't answer the best arguments. Use line-by-line concessions to frame the debate.

Any argument is compelling to me if it is has an impact. Regardless of an argument's real world validity, I will adjudicate in the most objective manner possible. This, of course, relies on you adhering to the flow so that I can evaluate what has been said, rather than what I think.

I have a limited knowledge of post-structural thought. I have no reservations voting for critiques, provided you execute them in a technically-superior manner.

New arguments: It is the responsibility of the debaters to justify whether new arguments are permissible in any given speech. If the question of new arguments goes untouched, I will default to ignoring new arguments made in the 1AR and onwards.

Be competitive, but more importantly, be **decent** human beings**.** No one has fun when debaters make each other uncomfortable. I will reward debaters who argue with a strategic balance of stubbornness, ambition, and courtesy; conversely, those who choose to antagonize and debate in an overly aggressive manner will be penalized.