Gonzalez,+Joshua

n.b.: there are more than one "Josh Gonzalez(es)" judging debates this year - do take care to check which one appears on the pref sheet.


 * //__If you want the short version, skip down to "Decorum/Attitude/Behavior" - those are the things about which I care most.__//**


 * Joshua Gonzalez, Grad Asst. University of Iowa **

 Rounds on 2010-2011 College Topic: 40 (20 Aff Wins/20 Neg Wins) Rounds on 2010-2011 High School Topic: none since I taught at summer camp.

Experience: I've coached debate for the better part of 20 years now. During that time, I've coached both high school and college teams (Holland, MI; Groves, MI; Michigan State University, Wake Forest University, and now the University of Iowa), with varying levels of success. By "varying levels" I mean that some of the teams that I've coached have gone 0-8 at regional tournaments, others have won the NDT. I judge a lot of debates at the college level now, I used to judge a lot in both college and high school, and before that, I judged a lot in high school.

Here’s some stuff you might find useful about how I judge. Or not.

 **__T/Framework/Etc.__** - Topicality is a voter. If you prefer me, you need to be OK with that. In all but the most extreme instances, I think that affirmatives should have to try and read a topical plan. What the words that are configured into this “plan” or constitute "topical" mean are probably open to debate (or how they are best understood/interpreted) but I am pretty sure they probably ought to defend that more people should get visas or that visas should be easier to get than they would be in a world without the plan. Put another way, the overwhelming majority of topics at least minimally imply a generalized outcome or course of action (more visas, less overseas military deployments, less nuclear weapons, more social services, etc.). At a minimum, I am inclined to believe that the affirmative should advance a reason why that generalized outcome/course of action is desirable. I think this because I believe there are a limited number of things that can be discussed in a given place/space. Two corollaries follow from this belief: there pedagogical benefits to the sorts of debates that can occur under a predictable point of stasis, and there are oftentimes problems of evaluation, adjudication, and incommensurability without some agreement over the questions to be debated. You will probably have a pretty hard time convincing me that the above statements are plainly false. You may have more (albeit still limited) success in attempting to convince me that other questions are more important. You should be aware that I seem to habitually assign a great deal of weight to arguments that make the importance of debate-as-clash into an epistemological claim, particularly one that takes up the question of the ability of either side to make validity claims in the absence of the test of debate and clash.

 __**Theory**__ – I don’t seem to vote on this much, but I’m probably just waiting to meet the right theory debater. I have an intuition that the multiplicity of worlds advanced in 1NCs these days are probably unfair, I just haven’t heard a team that has really made a good set of arguments as to why. Be careful with the words “logical policy maker”: logical policy makers might consider lots of different counterplans, but they probably think the politics disad is really, really stupid, too. I don’t have too much of a dog in the fight with regard to intrinsicness, etc. – I coach a lot of teams to go for politics, but I do also think that debate is probably worse off for it at the end of the day. I find most totalizing theories of CP competition pretty self-serving and stupid, particularly “textual competition.” I have not heard a compelling reason why it makes sense as a standard, rather than just something that conveniently excludes a number of undesirable counterplans. If those CPs are bad, there are likely plenty of good reasons to reject them on their own and we don’t need a counter-intuitive competition standard to prevent them from being run.

 __**ASPEC**__ – this is my least favorite debate argument. //New rule: 2ACs don’t have to spend any more time answering it than the 1NC spent reading it.// If the block makes a big deal, I’m inclined to allow a TON of new 1AR argument—and you can still probably say “cross ex checks” and get out of Dodge. Seriously, I've heard way too many eight second ASPEC shells as of late. If you think I should vote on it, act like it. And no, it's not because you're really, really fast.

 __**Consultation CPs**__ – these are my second least favorite debate arguments. Any generic strategy that creates an incentive for the aff to read plans that would be vetoed by any relevant international actor is probably a bad argument. I still vote on them and since points don’t matter so much at the NDT, you can still read it, just don’t expect great speaks, even if you give the best speech of your life.

 __**Critiques**__ – I used to be the guy that K teams struck. Now I seem to be a middle-of-the-road sort of fellow. Maybe even K-leaning. This is not because I think critiques are totally awesome and the past/present/future of debate. I actually think many, if not most of them are surprisingly shallow and dumb, //but most teams seem incapable of acquitting themselves as anything less than even more shallow and dumb.// I’m a grad student in comm studies whose research interests go a lot farther into the critical than do his debate interests, so there’s a good chance I know what you’re talking about. Don’t be afraid to make arguments that have some theoretical depth, but in so doing, do not fail to make them relevant to the question of the debate (theorizing biopower is totally fascinating, but you need to make into a reason to not do the plan). Note to affs: I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather hear you make an un-evidenced, but intelligent argument about the negative's critique than to have to hear about how I'm going to get "smacked down" in debates with policy professionals if I vote for the critique. First, the McClean evidence is sorely lacking warrants. Second, I've voted for critiques before and have since had debates with policy pros and pwned them. The arg is empirically disproved.

 __**Decorum/Attitude/Behavior**__ – ethos matters in a persuasive setting. You will excel at debate when you become comfortable with the fact that debate judges (this one in particular) are not logical robots. We are big, jiggly masses of flesh (this one in particular). This means that you should make some attempt at being likeable in debate rounds. I rarely find myself voting for teams that I do not like and yet feel as if I make decisions on the basis of relatively objective criteria like the arguments and evidence advanced in the round. This does not make much sense unless one comes to grips with the fact that how judges feel about you effects (affects?) how they understand and evaluate every other facet of the debate. I have committed my life to this activity and rarely regret it. Make it the sort of place that other people want to be and not only will judges reward you, but you will likely reap an enormous number of other intangible benefits as well. Only one team wins the tournament – everybody else should have a pretty good reason that they came. Year after year, I find that the //only// good reason (and the best reason that I could imagine) is “everybody else.”