Gonzaba,+Brian+D.

2 seasons debating for Millard South High School Omaha, NE – 2009-2011 (TOC, NFL, CFL, STATE CHAMPION) 2 seasons debating for KCKCC - 2013- 2015 (NDTx2, CEDAx2, NJDDT x2, phi rho pi) 2 seasons coaching debate for Omaha Westside – 2011- 2013 2 seasons coaching for Sumner Academy of Arts and Science – 2013-2015 Currently coaching Southern Methodist University and Lindenwood University

I don’t believe that there should ever be a predetermined curriculum for debate and I think the biggest thing that I as a judge can do is keep myself open to the possibility of being changed and inspired by what goes down in a debate… although the strong pessimist in me doubts that this will even happen.

This all being said, I like clear and concise debate that makes it easy for me to vote at the end of the round so I can give yall my decision, leave and see how my teams are doing and be there right away for the next batch of food in the judges lounge. I hate it when I have to spend 30+ minutes deciding a debate. I like it when a debate runs on time or ahead of schedule and get really generous with speaker points when they do.

I evaluate all arguments, although there are many I will often find ridiculous and will show dissatisfaction by the way I look at you or with my general attitude between the speeches.

I think that a great affirmative is a team that can roll with whatever the negative has to offer and execute the offense that their 1ac provides as a means of winning the ballot. I generally prefer that the affirmative does something, instead of an affirmative that claims I should vote for them because they didn’t do something or simply because something is good. The job of the 2ar is to win at all costs while somehow trying to convince me that the 1ar already beat the 2nr.
 * AFFIRMATIVE -**

I really like it when a team knows how to be negative. Offense, Offense, Offense. The job of the 2nr is to explain why the block was already sufficient in beating the 1ar, a low speaker in my mind is one who relies on squeaking by in the 2nr.
 * NEGATIVE -**


 * Theory debates** – I always see a lot of potential in these debates, but never see anything exciting happen. I’ve tried to figure out what it all means and I’m pretty sure that some people just made all of these things up…. But, if making up rules is your game and you think you’re good at it by all means let’s see how it goes…. Claim… warrant... impact… link… offense… same with topicality

I prefer seeing the criticism executed in a one off fashion, there has to be a link. I will intentionally not assume links for you. I do hold these arguments to a higher standard when I personally know a lot of the people these arguments were ripped off from.
 * The K** – I don’t know what this means anymore… I guess a 3 card shell that tells me neoliberalism is bad and policies are neoliberalist qualifies… I find myself voting for these way less than I would expect although near the end of the season my voting record with ks seems to go up.

Whoever said something about running the k like a non-unique disad, can’t have been that good at going for them. I think the top level argument should provide some sort of uniqueness, I think all arguments should have uniqueness, in fact I think that the k itself should often be thought of as a question of the affirmative’s uniqueness, i.e. what is it that the affirmative does that’s in anyway different than the way power relations function right now? Could the aff just be a polished up version of the same worn out ideals and apparatuses of oppression that always seeps its way into our lives and benefits systems of a humanist/white supremacist totality?

When debating against the k as the affirmative you should weigh the aff. Too often teams get away with bad debating because judges let them get away with these nonarguments and blippy defensive arguments that it encourages bad argumentative practices.

Teams don’t get to win on, “we’re not that capitalist” or something called a juxtaposition perm. If your aff is about increasing the economy in the 1ac, then I expect it to be about the benefits of increasing the economy in the 2ac (unless you're kicking it #addons)… just don’t let someone’s opinions get in the way of you making offense in the 2ac.


 * FRAMEWORK – it's anything goes... must exclude the aff unless you're prepaired to answer the perm.**

I used to despise these arguments having to hear every single different variation of it more than 80% of my entire time debating… but lately I’ve come around to the strategic power of this argument and have even voted on it.

If you’re gonna go for this, go hard or go home… have an Impact… why is fairness important…. Why does predictability matter… a lot of judges’ personal preferences in argumentation have put yall at a disadvantage in terms of argumentation because the award you for making the worst and most irrelevant arguments like “forced outing” or “decision making/buying a house”… again all of these words I keep using apply; offense, impacts, uniqueness, claim, warrant… I will not vote because something is unfair, I will vote because something has been impacted. **Sometimes framework is the smart strategy to go with.**


 * SPEAKERPOINTS –** If you do something out of the ordinary that I find intriguing and well developed in debate, I will award you with great speaker points… I’ve actually given out a lot of 30s … however my base usually starts at a 27 and I work my way up from there. I don’t know how people normally give out points but my thoughts are like this; I think about all the great speakers I know that are currently in the activity that I think are great debaters and I compare you to them…


 * PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ROUND**