Godfrey,+Tony

I debated at Burleson High School doing LD all 4 years, and continued in college doing some LD and Parli debate. I competed extensively at the local, state, and national levels. I’m 3 years out, and have judged quite a bit in both LD and Policy. **(If you don’t want to read everything I wrote here, you can probably skip to the last paragraph and be just fine).**

The resolution in my mind presents a statement of truth that the affirmative proves, and the negative proves not to be true. How debaters do that I have no predisposition for. I want to be told clearly why I should affirm or negate. I’ll always default to using the standards debaters present, unless I’m told some other standard that I should be using.

As a competitor I found it very frustrating when judges refused to evaluate certain types of arguments or presentation styles, and I’ll do my best not to do that to you as competitors now. Whatever your approach, whatever your argumentation, whatever your style is fine by me. All I ask is that you be clear. Some debaters in my experience are purposefully convoluted, and that’s not an approach that I have a lot of respect for (though I did it myself when I competed).

For some specific questions you may have: __ Prestandard/a priori arguments: __ These are fine. However, you need to be extra clear with these arguments about why I’m pulling the trigger at this level as opposed to further down the flow. To be honest, I have no problem with these arguments whatsoever, but I haven’t always understood them when they’re made. Maybe at times that’s my fault, but I think some of the time it’s because the argument’s not being made correctly. Just because something is prestandard does not mean that it’s “a priori.” __ Theory: __

Here’s where some of the confusion about a priori args happens, in my opinion. I hear people say that because an argument is prestandard it’s a priori, and that’s just not true. Theory args are “prestandard” in that they come before the case arguments, but they’re not a priori. Also, they’re not without a standard. If you’re making Theory arguments, make them clear. I have some policy background so I like it when you have Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters, but I don’t expect you to. The reason that structure is there is because to make a logical theory argument that matters, those 4 things need to be a part of the argument. If you don’t //say// Interpretation, but your competitive interpretation is articulated and there, then that’s fine with me. But, and I’ve said it already but I’m going to say it again, tell me //why// these arguments matter. That means have standards and voters, labeled or unlabeled, and make them clear. I love really good theory debates. I hate poor theory debates. __ Critical Arguments __ :

These arguments are fine too. If you run them though, please run them well and know what you’re talking about. I tend to take critical argumentation seriously, so don’t dilute the power of the arguments by running them “just to run them” and kicking out later. I won’t drop you for it, but it won’t make me like you. Also, don’t make these arguments unnecessarily or purposefully complicated either. I think in these arguments especially there needs to be understanding for both debaters so they can actually engage in the discussion. If your opponent “just doesn’t get it” that’s one thing, but if they don’t get it because you don’t want them to get it, I’ll know and it’ll hurt your speaks severely. Also, make sure you understand the argument you’re making, especially if you didn’t write the position. That too will hurt your speaks severely, and it will probably cost you the round (as you won’t be making good arguments). I like critical arguments, but I’m not going to pick any type of argument just because “Whoah he ran a K he wins!” __ Speed: __ I’m fine with speed. Go as fast or as slow as you want. Part of this activity is performance, and however you choose to do that I’ll adapt to. Just know that I have trouble flowing clearly high rates of speed, and since I’ve been away from the activity at high levels for a year or more, my ears probably can’t handle the speed I used to be able to. Keep that in mind. To help you, I give lots of nonverbal feedback, and have no qualms saying “Clear” or “Slow down.”

Sometimes I use those words because I’m having trouble understanding because of my own capability. I try to make it clear to you when you’re going to fast for me to handle (which, honestly, is going to be pretty fast). There is //no// excuse for choosing speed over clarity, however. I’ve seen plenty of debaters speak at breakneck speeds with wonderful clarity, and they’re perfectly understandable (Nathan Abell I always thought was a great example of this). Make sure, as with argumenation, that you’re clear, or it’ll hurt you. __ Speaks: __ This is an area that I’m honestly not sure how I judge on, and can be kind of arbitrary. I tend to start in my mind at 27 and move up or down from there. I can be pretty harsh sometimes, at other times not so much. I tend to give good speaks for clarity and high levels of argumentation and understanding of the round. Picking out the right arguments and blowing them up (or making the key arguments for //you// important even when they may not be initially). I guess the best way to get good speaks from me is know what you’re talking about, be clear, and have fully developed arguments that weigh against each other well.

Basically, here’s what you need to know about me. Make good arguments (both intelligent and fully developed), be clear (both in the arguments you’re making, where/how they function, as well as articulation regardless of speed), tell me what to vote on and why (I’m lazy…think for me because you never want a judge thinking for themselves), and please WEIGH. If you weigh arguments against each other (magnitude, timeframe, probability, importance) and do it well, I will love you forever and probably pick you up every time. Also remember that in my mind, while I value highly the discourse debate creates...I still look at it as a competitive activity. I expect you to play to win, but I also expect you to do it as respectfully and inclusively as possible. Also, you should read Ryan Cooper's paradigm on this page. I pretty much agree with it wholeheartedly.