Joplin,+Ty

BACKGROUND: I debated at Cypress Woods High School for 4 years. I mostly competed on the TFA and TOC circuits, but I also did UIL (Texas-specific), and the NFL (not a circuit but still relevant). I currently study at Haverford College and coach students at Stuyvesant High School and Randolph High School.

HOW I LOOK AT DEBATE: I think Debate is first and foremost an educational, albeit very competitive activity. This means that I think my role in the round has some capacity for being an educator. That said though, I will really try to not intervene in most-all situations, except for a few which I’ll discuss below.

I ran my fair share of critical cases, policy-style arguments, and everything in between, so chances are the strategy you want to do will be okay.

HOW TO GET MY BALLOT: Be comparative. Don’t pretend like you’re the best person ever in the existence of humanity via telling me you’re winning on every issue. You won’t be winning everything, so it’s essential to weigh between what you’re losing and what you’re winning to make me feel like what you’re winning on is the //most// relevant to the ballot. This means that framework debate is really important to me. If frameworks aren’t cleared up, and I’m stuck figuring out which framework is better, my ability to make a decision based on the objective events that occurred on the flow becomes less relevant and my personal, subjective beliefs/biases are at risk of becoming more relevant. I really hope the debate never comes to that.

SPEED: I think I’m alright with speed, but it’s your job to observe my nonverbals to make sure that we’re on the same frequency. If I’m not, slow down or the arguments you’re wanting me to get down may not be relevant to the round anymore. Don’t fall short on your obligation to clearly articulate your points. This means you need to slow down author names/taglines/other important things you want me to get down. Also, slow down when you’re reading a dense argument/position. Don’t assume that I’m well-versed enough in the literature you’re reading to just fill in the blanks of my flow with my interpretations of the author you’re carding. I also think that blasting full-speed through an especially dense philosophic position is just being unnecessarily malicious to your opponent.

KRITIKS: I really enjoy a //good// critical debate. I define //good// in this instance as topical, compelling, and not bastardized.

Don’t just pull out the generic K where the only parts that have topical lit are the links (this means you shouldn’t get a cap k/skep from some backfile and expect me to be satisfied). Your speaks will suffer and the chances of me voting on the K are less than if it has topic lit throughout. If you run a K that references the topic or aff advocacy throughout, I’ll view the K much more positively. In answering the K, please intellectually engage in the meat of the K. Don’t try to just avoid what the K is saying and hope I sympathize with your lack of wanting to clarify what the K is all about.

A kritik that is presented in a way that seems compelling is a good one in my opinion. This means that you should have your own analysis and original thought spliced in between concisely worded (or just well-put) and warranted cards. Don’t just spread 30 cards with your own thoughts on them being their taglines; actually tell me what you want me to get out of the cards, that way, I know how you want me to interpret everything.

Don’t bastardize the lit. Just because the author has 1 paragraph in his/her 300-500 page book that agrees with what you want to argue DOES NOT MEAN you should run that author. Research and find an author that is genuinely in line with what you want to say. If you sanitize, miscut, or blatantly misuse an author and their arguments, chances are that I will not vote on the K. You don’t want to risk this happening, so just don’t do this please. I expect you to have academic integrity when citing and reading cards/arguments. If you don’t blatantly bastardize what authors are saying, then we’ve got no problem and everything will be awesome.

THEORY: I dig a good theory debate. I’m not a huge fan of a debate that digresses down to solely bad theory, or one that revolves around different technicalities of theory/ T debate. I prefer debates about the substance. That said, I have no problem with a debater running theory, especially if it’s against some particularly abusive strategy that your opponent tries to employ to get a cheap win. And, I think the technicalities of theory can allow debaters to get pretty clever, which is entertaining. I don't default to either reasonability or competing interps, and have no strong preference either way, so all you need to do is a win a justification for me to think of theory in terms of either. I’m cool with voting on RVIs.

PRE-FIAT/ROLE OF THE BALLOT: I am great with it in the abstract, but I take it very seriously. Most of the people I've seen run pre-fiat don't treat the positions with the seriousness they mandate. It'll be much harder to win my ballot if I find your handling of the pre-fiat position to be immoral. Basically, make sure you are genuine in your intentions before running it in front of me, and make sure you are being smart and mindful when engaging in arguments like "use the ballot to vote down racism." If you try to convince me that racism will be solved if I vote for you, I'll just think you're a bad person and probably tank your speaks unless you have a godsend of a warrant. But hey, if you've got a great pre-fiat position that you're really passionate about, I would love to hear it.

SPEAKS: I haven’t yet devised a formula to dish out speaks with, but if you adhere to my paradigm you’ll be okay. Generally, if I give you a 27.5 or above, that means I think you should break at the tournament. Beyond that, read the below section to get tips on how to get great speaks/how to get awful speaks.

GENERAL STUFF:

I LIKE: Well-placed, well-timed, witty and pertinent jokes that help you make a point.

Being nice to your opponent. Have respect.

Uniquely thought-provoking arguments (clarification: not hackneyed arguments that attempt to sound creative or smart but really lack substance)

Debaters having fun. Don’t treat a debate like it’s a funeral, but don’t treat it like an informal party either.

BEING PERSUASIVE.

I DON’T LIKE: Racist, classist, homophobic, sexist, etc remarks that degrade your opponent/other people. This will guarantee you getting tanked on speaks and possibly receiving a loss.

Being mean to your opponent. (Don’t be a jerk)

Unclear rounds.

Excessive apologizing.

Generally being unsure of yourself.

If you have any more questions, please ask me. Seriously, ask me.