Josh Gonzalez -- Iowa
Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.
Judging philosophy:
Joshua Gonzalez, Grad Asst. University of Iowa Rounds on 2010-2011 Topic: 40 (20 Aff Wins/20 Neg Wins) Congratulations on qualifying for the NDT. Here’s some stuff you might find useful about how I judge. Or not. T/Framework/Etc. - Topicality is a voter. Be OK with that. In all but the most extreme instances, I think that you should have to try and read a topical plan. What the words that are configured into this “plan” 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. I think this because I believe there are a limited number of things that can be discussed in a given place/space and that not only are there pedagogical benefits to the sorts of debates that can occur under a predictable point of stasis, but that 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 assign a great deal of weight to arguments that make epistemological claims about the importance of debate-as-clash (HINT). 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 is likely plenty of good reasons to reject them on their own and we don’t need a counterintuitive 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. 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). Decorum/Attitude/Behavior – ethos matters in a persuasive setting. Become comfortable with the fact that debate judges (this one in particular) are not logical robots. We are big, jiggly masses of flesh. 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 and the arguments and evidence made in the round. This does not make much sense unless one comes to grips with the fact that how judges feel about you effects (affect?) 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.”
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: