Gonzalez,+Don


 * Experience**: I debated LD (half a year in 1980) and policy debate in high school and college during the early and mid 1980’s. I have coached high school policy and LD debate since 1999.


 * The most important thing**: I am a very demonstrative and interactive judge. 1) I will nod when I like an argument, 2) give you a blank look (huh?) when I don't understand, 3) will stop typing and prompt you up to TWO TIMES when I can't understand you, 4) I don't vote on anything I don't flow, 5) I do not entertain repugnant arguments (e.g., racism good), 6) I may interrupt you when I have heard enough (I think you have covered the argument adequately) & I want you to move on.


 * Speed** – is relative. I will let you know if you are too fast. I do prefer quality arguments to the quantity of arguments made. At the very least you should be clear on tags, plan/CP texts, Topicality and theory arguments. I'm not as tolerant of speed in LD because most cases lack the internal structure to easily follow.


 * K Debate** – you should be able to explain the thesis of your K in a few succinct and relatively simple sentences. I need to be able to understand it, if I am going to vote on it. You should probably slow down when reading these types of arguments so I can get a handle on what you are trying say. I WILL NOT ASK TO LOOK AT CARDS. You should also offer an alternative to the Plan. In LD the K should fit all of the above criteria and fit within the context of the resolution and the side you are debating.


 * CX Paradigm** – I vote most often like a policy maker. I want to hear the competing stories (systems to solve), which means I think CP’s are generally an important negative strategy. I want to hear the impact analysis (magnitude, probability and time) weighed in the round. If a round gets muddled, I do have a negative bias. On some level I believe the AFF at least has to show a need for change.


 * LD Paradigm -** I don't care so much that you have a Value and Value Criteria so long as you explicitly point out how you want me to evaluate the round. I am pretty traditional in the sense that I think the affirmative should affirm and the negative negate. I would prefer a round with good clash on the substantive issues implied in the resolution and not one that degenerates to arguing framework and theory. I don't like "hidden" arguments and burdens. Make the argument explicitly and let the round play out. The round should be about who debated the best, not who duped the other debater with an embedded burden, etc. Good impact analysis is appreciated and expected.


 * Policy Arguments in LD -** In and of themselves, I do not have a problem with "policy/CX" arguments in LD. I do believe the debater asserting the DA, CP, etc. must be able to demonstrate a specific link in the action of her opponent's case, not just the resolution. Absent this, I will give the debater answering the argument some wiggle room.


 * How to win my ballot**: Tell the better competing story, pick and choose your winning arguments and nail them down.


 * Disclosure:** If the tournament permits I will disclose the winner with a brief explanation but there will be no discussion. The ballot will explain my reasons for decision.


 * Random Tidbits**: Appropriate humor is appreciated. Not all drops are equal. You must tell me why they are so important to vote on. I won’t tolerate rudeness, unnecessary profanity or any other act that demeans the dignity of the activity. I WILL mark down speaks for such behavior. I think the "even though" argument is an underused approach in rebuttals and I can be persuaded to vote for a debater(s) that may link or have dropped a significant argument in the round with this approach. I have to admit that I am a pretty lazy judge and I want to be told what and why to vote a certain way. If you let the round get muddled I will intervene and then your chances of winning my ballot are about as good as a coin toss.