Kanellopoulos,+Paul

Some background information about me, I debated for four years in high school and was relatively competitive on the national circuit and currently debate for the University of Gonzaga. I think the round is for the debaters and will try my best not to impose my personal beliefs into my evaluation of the round.

This is the best i can characterize my thought process when I come to making decisions

__**Overarching Themes in the way I Evaluate Debate Rounds**__ 1) I evaluate everything in terms of offense and defense--I believe that the team that accesses the largest/fastest/most probable impact relative to their opponents largest/fastest/most probable impact will win. However, I am not in the school of thought that refuses to assign zero risk to an argument. If there is a defensive argument that is objectively true enough I will reduce an arguments risk to functionally zero.

It would serve you well to invest some time in giving good, comparative impact calculus.

2) I'm a minimalist, I try to impose as little as possible in determining the winner of the round. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IF YOU EXPECT ME TO READ YOUR CARDS. I want to read as little of your evidence as possible. If you are not explaining or impacting your evidence do not expect me to read your cards and do work for you based on what you're cards say if this is not explained in the round.

This is not to say that I won't read cards, just that I think at some level this is a speaking activity and you need to articulate a warrant and do more than re-read your tags to get me to do that.

3) Warrants, warrants, warrants- You can make as many blippy analytical arguments as you want, if there isn't a warrant or impact attached to it it won't get you very far. 99% of the time I end up voting for the team that gives the best warranted and comparative explanation of their position. If you spend the time to develop your arguments coherently you're speaker points will reflect it.

4) I am more willing than most to vote on "cheap shots." I believe that dropped arguments, in most instances, are objectively true. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT LISCENSE TO PROLIFERATE BAD ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME, it will be negatively reflected in your speaker points if you try to do that.

As for individual issues I'm open to interpreting the debate however you suit fit you just need to win a framework argument that means I should evaluate the debate differently also. These are just some of the guiding principles when it comes to my thought process it does not mean that if you make these arguments you will automatically win.

__**Topicality**__ I evaluate topicality debates through the lens of competing interpretations, in order to win the debate I believe the affirmative has to either win a we meet or provide a counter-interpretation that is preferable to the negative's desired interpretation of the resolution. If you, as the affirmative, stand up and read topicality isn't a voting issue and literature checks abuse and thats it and move on it will be very hard for me to vote for you.

It is possible to win a reasonability argument in front of me, you just have to have an impact to what evaluating topicality through a reasonable lens means in order for it to alter my decision.

__**Theory**__ I tend to err negative on theory, but that is only because the affirmative very rarely has a coherent story or impact in the final rebuttals explaining your argument. If you go for theory in front of me you need A. An interpretation that solves your offense, and: B. Terminal Impacts to your arguments.

__**Counterplans/Disadvantages**__ Love them. Affirmative's should try their best to have either a solvency deficit, offense on the net benefit, or a nuanced competition argument or it will be an uphill battle.

__**Kritiks**__ Read them, but don't expect me to have a perfect understanding of you're literature base. You need to extrapolate a coherent link, impact, and alternative (maybe even a framework or at least a reason why you operate within the afifrmative's framework) if you go for the critique in front of me. You should avoid spewing off buzzwords without attaching explanations to them like "Ontology Comes First, next..."