Jump to content
duallain

Idaho Nat Quals.

Recommended Posts

Ha ha. I am one of the Madison kids that qualled, and I can only say that I could learn a lot from western style of debate. I'm not a huge fan of critical or performance, but that's probably b/c I've never really learned about them, being from the east. And I will agree with Yoda and jred that I HATE COMMS JUDGES!!! As far as this whole east/west thingy goes, I'm kind of ambivalent I guess. I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other. BTW, Centennial, I'm sorry that NFL messed up the name so you couldn't come to Nat. Quals. It would have been fun to debate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from South Fremont (Eastside) and I and much of our team (excluding our coach) hate stock/comm judges. We as a school have taken state (B district now) 5 of the last 6 years because of our ability to adapt, (and we've had some friggin awesome debaters) I personally love a good K debate even though I'm really not very good at them. West side style is great and crap judges suck, but you can adapt most of the time. Granted there are judges that you can't guarantee a win unless you speak real pretty in single syllable words and you get lucky on their flow if they have one, but, most can be adapted to as you can see through our success regardless of what side state is on.

 

Madison good job but may I suggest researching instead of running extra T every round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who has SFHS ever produced?

Daniel Miller NFL qualifier, Greg Cheyne 2 time NFL qualifier, John Henager NFL qualifier, Josh and Liz Davenport NFL qualifiers, Jared Huber NFL qualifier, and between them all we have I think three first place teams at state and at least as many 2nds and 3rds. If your wondering why we don't have any TOC people it's because our coach won't take us to any of those tourneys.

why research when you can win on an operational?

ever think that judges get tired of hearing Extra T, Aspec, Ospec, FX, prima facie, etc every single round and begin to stop voting on it because they view it as a time suck. So maybe researching and saving T etc for when it actually has some merit would be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I wasn't being hostile or insulting, I was just asking a question, so responding with hostility was probably not the best course of action. Second, I'm glad you guys have a bunch of NFL qualifying teams, but how many of them did anything noteworthy at the NFL tournament? You have a bunch of 1,2, and 3rd place state teams? Well damn, thats a pretty good standard of measurement for debate prowess, considering you are a B school...... and it's state.... I don't doubt that you had some talented debaters however. Third, no, i don't think qualified judges get tired of hearing well run, well constructed, theoretically justified operational arguments, because they differ from round to round, and if a team runs them well then they'd never get boring. Fourth, a good judge is never going to write off an argument automatically as a time suck, unless they're an interventionist. Fifth, Paul I hope you were kidding... have you heard of any of the kids he named off, because I sure haven't.

 

(p.s.) I think operational arguments always have merit in any round. If you disagree, post your plan text and I'll give you a lesson in why it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you are talking about Isaac. Mike and I ran a very valid ASPEC but twice at Nat. Quals. and I think once last week. Could you believe that we lost to that insanely untopical ICC case? Oh well. I agree with Allen, I do love a good procedural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaac, first off when have we "run extra-T every round"? I only recall seeing you watch our rounds once and that was at South Fremont. You might want to at least have seen a few more of our rounds before you make broad claims like that.

 

Second, it was justified. Are you trying to tell me that a plan that ratifies the Rome Statute and then claims to solve genocide and war isn't extra-topical? Jeff and I have done the research and simply because we don't have an ICC bad file doesn't prove otherwise. We were (and still are) sure that the UN topic was last year.

 

Third, procedurals are a "rule of the game." Granted, Jeff and I always throw in some kind of T or procedural in our strategy but what is wrong with that? If your 1AC is so topical and fair than you dang well better be prepared to prove that. As I recall, Paul and Allen basically won state last year on procedurals with Comm/Lay judges. Procedurals are at the heart of the activity and always "have some merit."

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...