Gonzalez,+Jonathan

Judge Name: Jonathan Gonzalez School: University of South Florida Experience: Currently Debates for the University of South Florida after debating for four years in high school at Tampa Prep

//Find the LD judging philosophy below the policy one.//

So I'm going to make this as straight as possible forward for anyone reading this, because I've had personal experience reading a ton of messy judge philosophies myself, so I'll try and section everything off as neatly as possible.


 * If you are prepping for a round this is a quick and simple overview of what I say below. For preffing judges, scroll down a little bit**

T/Theory: If the topic is big, I still like to err aff on T, but I'm more likely to vote neg than on other topics. Theory, I generally err neg. If you're going for T in the 2NR, only go for T. Same goes for something like condo. Ks/Framework: They're fine for the neg. Aff, they're fine if you are topical. Topical does not mean that you have to take a topical action (such as a plan text) but you do have to affirm the resolution because simply put, those are the rules. I like to hear link stories and impact calc. Framework should be a debate over which impacts to weigh, but generally, I like to give the aff/neg a chance to weigh the case/disads, but if it comes down to a debate over competing ontologies, certainly, the aff needs to be able to defend their's is better. Counterplans: Condo/Agent/PICs are fine if they're close to fair. Counterplans that result in the plan are probably bad. Consult CPs when necessary. Case: Spend time here. It's important and can screw the 1AR. Performance: See above. I prefer that you affirm the resolution at least in some form. This does not mean that I will not vote for you, but the bar will be much higher if you do not at least discuss the topic or relate your argument directly to the topic in more than a superficial way (note: to define superficial way for those who wish to use my judging philosophy as a card, an example of a superficial connection would be where a team creates an argument about themselves as debaters and references the topic only as a parallel situation or comparable example).


 * If you're preffing judges start here. .**

I would claim that I am a tabula rasa judge, but eventually, I have to admit to myself that I actually do have some biases in argumentation (mostly coming out of my own debate experience). For any straight up policy team that likes to dabble in the K a small amount, I am probably a good judge to be in front of.

Performance: Not much here to say, but I figured I ought to put it first so that you can stop here and strike me now if you do not perform a topical aff. I would prefer that you would actually debate a resolutional plan text, but this is not a necessity in front of me. In fact, in the broader scheme of debate history, the plan text is a relatively new development, and I do not think that debate should always be tied to one. This means I like it when the federal government acts and I like it when you are "topical" but you do not need to be to win in front of me; however, there is a point where I do hit an ideological block. I am firmly of the belief that the affirmative must affirm the resolution (those are simply the rules, and just because you do no want the rules to apply to you does not mean that they don't). If you are a performance team, to win in front of me you must at least discuss the topic or relate your argument directly to the topic in more than a superficial way (note: to define superficial way for those who wish to use my judging philosophy as a card, an example of a superficial connection would be where a team creates an argument about themselves as debaters and references the topic only as a parallel situation or comparable example). When I say ideological block, I mean that if the negative argues framework in the 2NR, the affirmative will probably lose if they are not affirming the resolution. I also would prefer that you act like a policy debater and not a transgendered black female immigrant (unless that is you actually happen to be one), and in turn I would ask that you not ask me to view myself as such (as I most certainly am not); however, this scenario is not as much of a game breaking issue either, as some appeals to pathos are certainly warranted. I don't like the way performance debate is developing in the debate community, and while I believe there is a place for a "kritikal affirmative", I would prefer not to judge a poetry contest in which one side is clearly more prepared to debate that the other. If you are debating against a performance team in front of me.

Kritiks: So this brings me to kritiks. I'm perfectly fine with them. I'm decently versed in some of the most common authors, but once you get obscurer than authors like Baudriard, you're going to have to give me some guidance in the 2NR as to why you're facecrushing the aff after the block, and why the 1AR's answers aren't responsive, because I might not make those connections as easily as you would like me to. I like clear explanations on the link debate, and reasons why either the alternative would solve the case, or why the links/impacts "turn" the case for lack of a better way to phrase it (K comes first is how most phrase it). Floating PICs are probably bad, but in some instances I might vote for them (I have run them, and the most convincing argument for m is that discourse shapes reality).

Framework: For me, the framework debate is no longer an issue of whether the negative gets Ks. Its now an issue of how the aff is weighed versus the K. I am very much ideologically biased that the aff should get to weigh their advantages alongside impacts like ontology, and claims like "ontology first" to me are just different ways of doing impact calculus. To shortly explain, that doesn't mean I won't weigh ontology first. If the 1AR drops ontology first, in my mind, that's the equivalent of the 1AR dropping a disad impact that you've already claimed in the block outweighs all of case, which is probably not a bad place to be in. In most cases, I think that allowing the aff to weigh the case is a good compromise on framework, but I want to hear a genuine discussion of why I should vote for a particular style of impact versus another; that is that the affirmative should be capable of defending their own ontology. Epistemology is a thorny issue for me because I do think that there are some objective truth claims, and I would prefer a non-kritikal impact to be weighed on the basis of probability (i.e. how likely is it that the aff's story is true). The other issue for me on the framework debate is that I don't think it needs to be too card heavy. If you're making good impact calculus arguments as to why the case gets weight in the 1AR, even if the block buries you is framework cards, I'm more likely to grant you your impacts if you make smart arguments why their framework is unfair.

Counterplans: Love them. I would prefer they compete somehow through net benefits (disads, kiritiks, solvency turns), though I'm always open to new ways to make a counterplan work. I am certainly a fan of well thought out, multiple plank advantage counterplans as opposed to just replacing an actor, and you will probably see higher speaker points going for as specific of a counterplan strategy as possible. I like PICs when they are specific, but the more generic you get, the less likely I am to err your way on theory. Plan plus, or if the counterplan would result in a plan, that's probably a no-no. International actors are fine when the topic makes them relevant. Consult counterplans are only legitimate if it seems like the actor you are consulting would legitimately care, i.e. don't consult the Native Americans on offshore oil platforms if tribal territory does not extend into the ocean. I like textual competition, mostly, but I can understand why in some cases you won't want to or can't make it textually competitive, but a good faith effort to explain yourself and why you have a net benefit in the block is probably enough for me. Agent counterplans are fine, but they seem almost as though you didn't put the work into prepping out the aff. Multiple actors are probably not legitimate. Perms are automatically intrinsic if the aff advocates them after the counterplan is kicked. Perm do the counterplan is most convincing when the counterplan doesn't compete textually.

Advantages/Disads (they're the same thing, except link turned): Meat and potatoes of any strategy. Emphasize your impacts. Unless you're a K only team, have them.

Case: Lots of the time, the case debate is heavily overlooked. I've actually come to really enjoy a well developed and in depth case debate. A 2NC that is only case can be devastating if done well and a disad in the 1NR seals the average 1AR's fate. You will get extra speaker points for a well structured and targeted case frontline expanded on in the block. Impact turns are certainly a plus when they make sense and are reasonable, and it's never a horrible thing to mix kritikal and policy case presses (i.e. pan china makes some awesome arguments about their advantage outside of its usefulness for the security k).

Topicality/theory: I'd like to think I've cleared up a lot of the theory issues on counterplans, but I err aff on T, generally. Normally I'll have a general opinion about whether or not an aff is topical as soon as you read the plan. This doesn't mean you can't change my mind though. Generally, I also go neg on most theory. I think condiationality is perfectly legitimate as long as you don't abuse it (3 or more advocacies, new block advocacies [in round abuse.. -hint- -hint-, not just 2ac strategy skew]). I do like a good T/theory debate with clash, but if you go for it in the final rebuttals, I would prefer you spend all or most of your time on those flows.

I think that covers everything, but if you have any questions, you can email me at gonzo_405@hotmail.com.

//LD judging philosophy//

//The most important thing for you to know is that I am a policy debater, and therefore am very flow oriented. I will vote specifically on arguments articulated in the debate round. I've judged a fair amount of LD and I enjoy doing so. I will probably be familiar with a large portion of your arguments, but explanation is never a bad thing. Definitely be sure to explain voting issues at the end of the round though. If the opposing team dropped your definition, I need you to tell me that I can drop them just for that.//

//As for progressive LD and spreading, they're double edged swords. You can win these positions in front of me, but you should also be prepared to defend why they are okay for you to read. The one area where the lines blur more for me, that i've noticed is in the realm of language kritiks. If one team is using racist language (for example), and a language kritik is read, I will probably not vote against the language kritik because it doesn't belong in LD. If you are racist, or otherwise offensive, that probably outweighs your arguments on debate rules.//