Tung,+Joseph


 * Joseph Tung**

__Former School Affiliations (unaffiliated as of May 2007)__ Bellaire High School (Houston, Texas) The Kinkaid School (Houston, Texas) St. Thomas More High School (Lafayette, LA)

__Schools Attended__ Plano Senior High School (Plano, Texas) University of Texas (Austin, Texas) Southern Methodist University (Dallas, Texas)

__My Philosophy__ My philosophy on debate is dictated in large part by my personal views. While many of my colleagues see themselves as a passive participant, educator, or critic, I think it is wholly unrealistic and counter-productive to pretend that our personal views and experiences are not an integral part of the activity. We strive to be "unbiased" but continue to deploy certain rules, styles, and procedures that reflect our training and beliefs. A published judging philosophy wouldn't be necessary if this were simply a matter of picking the fastest, strongest, or most talented competitors. I'm a big believer that debate is still an interactive activity and encourage educational and entertaining interaction. If the following explanations do not help, feel free to ask at any time.

__My Background__ I am currently an attorney in Houston, Texas. I debated in high school at Plano Senior High School (suburb of Dallas, Texas) and debated at The University of Texas (Austin). I coached Plano Senior High School and St. Thomas More (Louisiana) while I was attending law school at Southern Methodist University (Dallas, Texas). I've been competing, judging, or coaching debate for about a dozen years. There have been times where I am prone to "intense" discussions. I have tried to limit the intensity, but it's important to know that when such intensity arises, it is a sign that I am passionate about a particular subject. I don't like debate terms strung together as if somehow that forms a sentence. I prefer complicated, well thought out, and detailed explanations (I know, easier said than done). I am not the type of person that looks for the straight-forward and simple explanation. The more complex and difficult an issue, the more likely I am going to be intrigued by it. As such, simplistic, repetitive, and insulting arguments tend to trigger a massive attention deficit attack or even worse, just a little rage.

__Topicality__ Theory of the rules. The form of topicality arguments is to help develop an explanation without wasting a lot of time, it is not designed to spew out 4 topicality violations at 40 seconds a piece. If the affirmative is questionably topical, I prefer one well-developed and explained topicality violation, as opposed to as many theory-type arguments as you can conjure up. Topicality was a favorite of mine when I debated, and I enjoy a good topicality debate.

__"Kritiks"__ Decide early on what it is you are doing with this argument. Be prepared to explain with great detail how the argument functions in the round. Why am I supposed to vote for it? There is no end to the amount of questions I can ask regarding an argument that proposes to question or challenge another argument. The team that has the ability to explain, defend, argue, attack, and subsume the other argument will win any round in front of me, but it is terribly important to do that in a round involving a critique. These were also a favorite of mine when I debated and I enjoy a good "K" round.

__Theory__ Because these arguments tend to be less than fully developed, I'm not a big fan of them. However, if there is a lot of time being spent on them (and for good reason), then I view the argument comparatively between the two teams. I like the intellectual discussion of theory, but I VEHEMENTLY DISLIKE the lack of clarity that often accompanies one of these discussion. I am comfortable with just about any counter-plan (i.e. usually will not vote against a counter-plan because of legitimacy or theory), but see counter-plans as a test of competitiveness.

__Impact Calculus__ If your 2AR/2NR is your worse speech, then you run a good chance of losing in front of me. The last rebuttals are THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECHES in debate rounds. The 2NR is especially difficult because you must be able to explain the round, justify a vote in your favor, while anticipating the 2AR offense. If you wish to win in front of me, you will have to give good rebuttal speeches. Some advice on how to do that: (1) be honest with yourself (and the judge) about the arguments that you are winning/losing; (2) incorporate this honesty into a strategy of how to approach the impact calculus; (3) start and end the speech with something that will really impact the listener (a goofy road map and being cut off in the middle of a card will not impact the listener); (4) don't focus on short or cheap arguments that although simplistic, do not accomplish much of anything without more explanation and analysis.

__Style__ Finally, I get annoyed with sloppy speaking. It's difficult to follow and it gets frustrating. Should you also decide to be rude, arrogant, snippy, or otherwise unpleasant, it tends to make me even more agitated.

If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to ask.