DeGiovanni,+Trent

I debated for 4 years at Douglas High School. I am a Senior at Gonzaga and am currently debating and debated my freshman year.
 * __Background__****:**

I like creative arguments and strategies, which doesn't always mean being more obscure. I have an easier time voting on "cheap shots" than a lot of other judges. Whatever you choose to do, explain your arguments and thoroughly develop your position. I think debate is ultimately about communication so if I don't get it you won't win it. At the end of the debate I just want to be told why you won no matter what the argument is.
 * __General__ __Com____ments:__**

__**Topicality:**__ I default to competing interpretations but I can be persuaded by a good reasonability argument. T is not particularly persuasive unless there's a clear violation.

__**Counterplans:**__ I prefer case specific advantage counterplans over agent/process counterplans. The 2NR needs to make a judge choice argument if they want me to kick the counterplan if they lose it.

__**Disads/Case:**__ These are debates that I am most comfortable evaluating. I prefer topic specific disads to the politics or spending disad. I think that you need to do comparative impact evaluation.

__**Kritiks:**__ Assume I'm not going to know what you're talking about. Explain your argument clearly. At the end of the round, if I don't have any clue what your link/alternative is I'm going to assume you probably don't either. This isn't to say I won't vote on the K, you just probably need to spend more time explaining it in front of me than in front of other judges.

__**Performance:**__ I don't want to discourage teams from reading what they want to read, but I am not quite sure how to evaluate these debates. Just make sure to explain what the role of the ballot is. It would be best to have some sort of advocacy statement. If you completely ignore the topic I'm going to be pretty willing to vote on framework.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at trentdegiovani@gmail.com