Jump to content
giantchkn

PFI Invitation available now!

Recommended Posts

I have been called many things in my years.

 

For starters, I'm told I'm one of the most sarcastic people alive. That doesn't always come through in text, obviously. Communicating in text, or with those who don't know me well, can be problematic to say the least. Despite my self-delusions, the Lord didn't bless me with the comedic timing or social graces to know when to leave the sarcasm behind.

 

I've been called overly analytical. I've been called negative, pessimistic, even sardonic. I've been called obsessively picky.

 

I've been called "a self-righteous twit" (by a veteran reporter from a major newspaper, no less).

 

These people obviously know me better than I know myself.

 

I'm not feeding this fire anymore. Louis, I'm sorry. I'm saying it publicly now and will contact him privately also. It was never my intent to deride your judging, debating, or intellectual capacities. My sarcasm was obviously ill-timed and misinterpreted, and I apologize for any offense you may have inferred.

 

What I thought was some innocuous good humor was, apparently, very stupid. I was probably even out of line piggybacking on a less-than-appropriate nickname for Louis.

 

I took a liberty that I shouldn't have. Let's move on.

 

To those who thought I might be taking a shot at Louis "behind-his-back," I'm well aware that he has popped up on this forum before. We've exchanged messages on this forum and discussed our past disagreements in a civilized fashion.

 

As for the tangental disputes and ancient history that other people have brought up, people can contact me directly if they want to discuss decisions from years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just accept it, you're all clinically insane and completely fucked up in the head - you did policy for four years (minimum) and that has warped your sense of reality. If seven doses of acid (according to urban legend) makes you legally insane, then unquestionably one round of policy does the same.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well darn.. it seems I've missed the fun.

 

...And I still have {little to} no idea what went on in the Turkey round.

 

Good times, sort of.

Steph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This recent orgy of evisceration convinces me more than ever PA folks DESPERATELY need to escape their own little pond - I think seeing the same people week after week in a fairly small group breeds the nastiness I keep seeeing in posts moth after month, its really critical for you all to venture out to more tournaments our way to give you all a little more room to see and hear different things because its obvious that you alll carry a wholeeeeeee lot of baggage towards each other- not for the 80th time let's truly unite PA with the rest of the NE, I promise you will all feel better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well darn.. it seems I've missed the fun.

 

...And I still have {little to} no idea what went on in the Turkey round.

 

Good times, sort of.

Steph

Just to summarize for you Steph: my evidence was clearly better than George's evidence, as the competent judge in the round saw. But people like to bring judges for day 2 of NFL quals who haven't seen debate in years and vote on pretty speaking. And Gutman isn't pretty by any definition.

 

Also Michael is right, though it isn't like the national circuit or New York circuit is free of hostility...they apparently don't use cross-x.com to talk about it. But we don't have as much work to do to prep for rounds in PA, so we spend extra time beating each other to death on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to summarize for you Steph: my evidence was clearly better than George's evidence, as the competent judge in the round saw. But people like to bring judges for day 2 of NFL quals who haven't seen debate in years and vote on pretty speaking. And Gutman isn't pretty by any definition.

 

Also Michael is right, though it isn't like the national circuit or New York circuit is free of hostility...they apparently don't use cross-x.com to talk about it. But we don't have as much work to do to prep for rounds in PA, so we spend extra time beating each other to death on here.

 

The only good Turkey card that I read was a card that my brother cut for me... The one about how if marginilized, Turkey would drift East... and unite with Russia... the problem being that we didn't have any good impacts for that... and we didn't have a link... yeah...

 

I agree about branching out to an extent... but I experienced similar distress at national tournaments... just less often so it made it more acute when it happened... while i mention local rounds with an amount of anger... locally i feel that everyone expects things to be up in there... but nationally, it feels worse... for example... last round at lexington last year when the judge admitted that he had only dropped Hooch twice on the topic... and ended up voting on econ impx off of a politix DA that weren't in the 2nr... and the disad didn't have a link at all... which i made clear post-decision in 15 seconds (he said why didn't you say that in round) when i had said the same thing and more in the 1ar over 30 seconds...

 

I don't know... all this talk of rounds is making me nostalgic and chatty... i apologize... i will now take my leave of these boards for awhile...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Jeff's comment on the Lachey looking up then moving on when he saw that you were the only one flowing. I remember that you had made that comment to me a few times before and that's why i thought originally he was a genius. It was in the context of this post on this forum that I recently changed my mind "The first time, you picked me and Guy up against Mangels when Guy cross-applied the entire Decol CP flow onto the Col K flow. For awhile, I actually thought that I won that round."

 

Up until he made that post and then in his answer to my post I thought it was genius, now there's a much better explanation that goes along the spirit of my first post, and it shows that he got better as he got more experienced which anyone would suggest. It's no big deal how the round fared out, it was Villager after all. But in rereading his answer to my post I must admit I feel kind of sorry for you Lachey. Beating Shauro and I is far from glory, we did nothing all year yet somehow managed to break at a couple of tournaments. Oh yeah, now i remember no one knows how to debate zizek. That's how i won all those rounds.

 

Well I've got no bad blood at all, I'm glad I'm not the one competing anymore I don't have to worry about all the stress associated with that nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About Jeff's comment on the Lachey looking up then moving on when he saw that you were the only one flowing. I remember that you had made that comment to me a few times before and that's why i thought originally he was a genius. It was in the context of this post on this forum that I recently changed my mind "The first time, you picked me and Guy up against Mangels when Guy cross-applied the entire Decol CP flow onto the Col K flow. For awhile, I actually thought that I won that round."

 

Up until he made that post and then in his answer to my post I thought it was genius, now there's a much better explanation that goes along the spirit of my first post, and it shows that he got better as he got more experienced which anyone would suggest. It's no big deal how the round fared out, it was Villager after all. But in rereading his answer to my post I must admit I feel kind of sorry for you Lachey. Beating Shauro and I is far from glory, we did nothing all year yet somehow managed to break at a couple of tournaments. Oh yeah, now i remember no one knows how to debate zizek. That's how i won all those rounds.

 

Well I've got no bad blood at all, I'm glad I'm not the one competing anymore I don't have to worry about all the stress associated with that nonsense.

 

 

It was judge adaptation to some extent... I was going to continue (we did have everything answered on the flow itself, but I slowed down like hell even for me at that time-- if you recall we had the judge that said speak like a kindergarten teacher)... But, I did indeed move on because I think Guy said to move on... and Guy was watching the judges...

 

(Jeff gives me too much credit as if I looked up and saw and moved on... which could've been the actual case, I can't remember exactly, but I think I looked at Guy as far as I remember...)

 

The reason I thought I "won the round" was because back then... I equated getting ballots to winning rounds... there wasn't really a distinction in my head...

 

That distinction came when instead of screwing people over like I did to you in that round on the flowI started to get screwed over myself and developed that understanding of separation...

 

I think the seeds of that were working in place before that actually... with losses on K's that we clearly won... when judges after the round would casually mention locally "oh i forgot to say that i don't like K's"...

 

But the major heartbreakers, that really solidified the difference between different ways of conceptualizing the round for judges on the ballot, and there being ultimately, in most cases, only one legitimate way of reading the flow at the end of the round happened probably at calvert... when I lost to Adam and Steve because the judge said since Guy called their argument crap (a "casinoes disad" with probably one card on it) we lost... thats where I finally looked back and said... there is a separation...

 

We did tailor everything to "not Jeff" in our round no doubt... and we joked about it afterwards... and the style that we used was probably more appropriate... but clearly we should've put the turns on the top or something...

 

Guy wanted me to write on here after seeing this... something like.... we will defend our reactions to the judges on the fly (moving on when no one is flowing the K anymore in the 1ar, but Jeff)... but we def. won't defend the debating (moving on when the biggest offense on the K is still untouched)...

 

I think I actually remember having a grumbling feeling in my stomach about moving on when there was still so much left to cover... kinda like turning in a paper early to get extra credit, but without spending as much time checking over it or adding the most content or something...

 

I definitely oversimplified my conception of the round in my last few posts... and I think I'm giving myself less credit here than I deserve... I didn't think we "won" the round in simple terms... I did know that had the panel been different we would've lost... but again... I didn't have the "winning the flow should mean everything" mindset back then... I was still slightly entrenched in a tradition of persuasion at Truman... even if I wasn't a good speaker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The first time, you picked me and Guy up against Mangels when Guy cross-applied the entire Decol CP flow onto the Col K flow. For awhile, I actually thought that I won that round."

 

meaning I thought that the way the 2 affirming judges looked at the round was justified, in that they were judges... or something to that effect...

 

I'm pretty sure that was the first instance of flagrant judge wrongness that I ran into in my career... or the first time that I saw a reaction from a fellow debater... before that I don't think I even really entertained the notion of questioning a decision for more than a few minutes after the round as a gut reaction...

 

keep in mind that I was a momma's boy and a right-wing, morally angelic little boy back then...

 

now only the momma's boy part is true... and maybe the morally angelic part if you can picture a super masculine angel... that picks on people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the casinos disad was excellent, that was one of our first debates, if I remember correctly, Guy asked me to weigh the impacts and I said that our piece of paper weighed more than his because we had construction paper......

 

i am also getting tired of losing to the risko on anthro....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree about branching out to an extent... but I experienced similar distress at national tournaments... just less often so it made it more acute when it happened... while i mention local rounds with an amount of anger... locally i feel that everyone expects things to be up in there... but nationally, it feels worse... for example... last round at lexington last year when the judge admitted that he had only dropped Hooch twice on the topic... and ended up voting on econ impx off of a politix DA that weren't in the 2nr... and the disad didn't have a link at all... which i made clear post-decision in 15 seconds (he said why didn't you say that in round) when i had said the same thing and more in the 1ar over 30 seconds...

 

That I followed. It stung a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, Guy, Mike, et al.:

 

I'm not going to rehash the specifics of rounds that are ancient history. Even if I could find the flow, how accurate is my recollection of the round going to be? It was over 3 years ago. And here's something you'll soon learn, if you haven't already: your recollection of judged rounds is far less clear than rounds you debated, especially over time.

 

But I will respond generally to the round as it pertains to my paradigm and overall view of debate.

 

1. Truman won the round. They won two of the three ballots, and none of the judges were corrupt or intentionally biased (to the best of my knowledge).

 

2. a. Debate is a social construct. The meaning of a debate is assigned by its participants. With the exception of "the rules" (which are few), the framework of the debate is ad hoc. That includes the terms of victory. Obviously, you view debate differently than I do. We're not *that* different when compared to a judge that fills in the little squares, adds up the points, and then decides who wins (all while demanding that you maintain eye contact or speak 'like a teacher delivering a lecture to note-taking high schoolers').

 

2. b. Similarly, a judge can vote however they want so long as they are violating "the rules." Vote on pretty speaking? Sure. Eye contact? Yep. They can "intervene," vote within any paradigm, etc. While this may not be Dramatic Duo, it's still an inherently subjective event and the judge has tremendous discretion in formulating his/her own framework for evaluating the round. That discretion cannot be interfered with.

 

3. Revisionist history in debate is the equivalent of arguing "the voters are stupid." You may be right. Perhaps the judges missed something, were duped, or (more subjectively) lacked the intelligence/skill/experience/paradigm to judge the round to your satisfaction. I could argue (effectively) that American voters have elected the wrong presidents for decades. But questioning the judgment of those empowered to chose has no relation to the legitimacy of their choice. At the end of the day, there is no law that says a voter can't choose a candidate based on appearance, gender, race, name, position on the ballot, etc.

 

4. All that being said, I strive to allow the debaters to construct the framework for the round. I'm no Ankur, and my paradigm isn't "floating," but I realize that I am not juding "my" debate - I'm judging YOUR debate.

 

5. THAT being said, there is no such thing as tabula rasa. No matter how "non-interventionist" we make ourselves, we enter the round with certain attitudes and biases. These are both stylistic and substantive. Jeff Kahn hates RVIs, I hate disorganized line-by-lines that attempt to sneak in shady impacts, etc. We may try to overlook our biases, but the judge must often serve as arbiter on a disputed point and determind which side is in the right.

 

6. And THAT being said, I (and every other judge) can only adapt up to the limits of our willingness AND ability. I can say "the round is yours" but I can't judge a debate in French. Essentially, the further away from a judge's comfort zone you get, the less likely you are to be pleased with how the judge evaluates the round vs. your expectations. Some judges may not be willing to adapt their paradigms at all. Others won't be well-equipped to adjudicate the round exactly the way you'd like - even when both teams agree on a framework.

 

7. I stand by every decision I've ever made. I've made every decision to the best of my ability and in accordance with my paradigm at the time. I've never blatantly "intervened" (in fact almost half my ballots are LPWs because of this) and I've never made decisions because of debaters/schools I prefer.

 

8. That being said, my judging paradigm and abilities have changed throughout the years. Judging at my first tournament ever, AND my first tournament on a topic, and judging two teams for the first time, and not having been exposed to any of their arguments OR any type of speed in 3 years is quite a different scenario than I'm in today. I've always been QUALIFIED to judge, but even I can admit that I've grown as a judge over the past four years. So, with that, I can't promise you that I'd adjudicate your round the same way today as I did in 2001 or 2002.

 

Ultimately, debate is a popularity contest. I hate to say it. And I (along with other good judges, of which there are several in the SEPA region and I consider most of the judges who frequent this forum to be "good judges") strive to overcome it.

 

But you have to pander, adapt, and please your judges. Even when judges are TRYING to be fair, or say they're "tab" or "run whatever you like," that shouldn't be an open invitation to go hog wild.

 

To the best of my recollection, NEG ran a Decol CP and an Imperialism K against a case that gave indian tribes $ for mental health or something. The judging panel included a judge who was heavy in the "Classic Debate" movement (slow, stock issues) and another who, at the time, professed a deep disdain for unrealistic arguments, speed, and Ks (me). I don't have the flow, but to be "disappointed" in the decision based on arguments hidden deep within the K (which was probably a poor choice to run anyway) flow is really passing the buck.

 

Especially with biased and/or speed/spread averse judges, you have to run ARGUMENTS you plan to win. Not sub-arguments or embedded voters. Ask yourself: can you WIN that K? If not, do you really think the judges who aren't going to vote for the contested K are going to pick you up on relatively subtle impacts hidden within that K?

 

That's like attempting to "educate" a bleeding-heart retiree coal-miner Democrat that they shouldn't vote for Kerry based on Social Security because the Bush plan really doesn't threaten their future benefits in light of current actuarial analysis...

 

...or...Trying to convince an evangelical from Alabama who always does what they're preacher tells them not to vote for Bush based on gay marriage because the procedure for amending the Constitution doesn't involve the president.

 

You may be RIGHT, but ultimately it's not a winning fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Adam,

 

Shouldn't you be getting ready for districts this weekend? :)

 

See you in Fredricksburg tomorrow. Good luck!

 

K. Hanson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh, Guy, Mike, et al.:

 

.

 

Guy and I actually had a conversation last night about that round, and realized that we don't really remember that much about it. Also, I think Guy didn't see much of a problem with the decision itself, and I guess I didn't either-- again going back to ballot versus trying to interpret the flow as 'clean slate' as possible. With you saying that you didn't like speed and K's weren't really your things, I remember after the 1nc being 5 or 6 off and case... we just tried to slow down and make everything as policy oriented as possible... tried to ground the debate on our terms and within the context that you set up. Ultimately, even though its a bit of a stretch, one could argue that our perm and link turns solved back the turns that we ignored... AT LEAST to the extent that someone who doesn't want to be hearing the argument to begin with would be satisfied.

 

It would be interesting to see how that round would be judged now... if it went down the same way... although I wouldn't want to have to watch me debate as poorly as I did the beginning of my sophmore year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This recent orgy of evisceration convinces me more than ever PA folks DESPERATELY need to escape their own little pond - I think seeing the same people week after week in a fairly small group breeds the nastiness I keep seeeing in posts moth after month, its really critical for you all to venture out to more tournaments our way to give you all a little more room to see and hear different things because its obvious that you alll carry a wholeeeeeee lot of baggage towards each other- not for the 80th time let's truly unite PA with the rest of the NE, I promise you will all feel better!

 

You are right, but 99% are not willing......Most aren't willing to travel within the state let alone out of it.....Half of the teams in the Philadelphia area refuse to give up a Saturday for a tournament, let alone an entire weekend to travel......which means the 4-5 schools that travel about the region now are all your going to get.

 

Shawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dag pa debate is intense...i was trying to find some work in pa for next year too. i wonder if i should still consider it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dag pa debate is intense...i was trying to find some work in pa for next year too. i wonder if i should still consider it

 

 

yes, you should, coaching is good for the soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dag pa debate is intense...i was trying to find some work in pa for next year too. i wonder if i should still consider it

 

 

offer to coach the state college team. i am positive they can use the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...