Jump to content
Once-Ler

The 3rd Annual "Best of Kansas" Thread

Recommended Posts

 

i would not shed a tear over the death of 4-speaker debate.

 

Honestly, the whole 2-speak being better than 4-speak debate really can never be proven....maybe that is why it is a debate! I think they both have value for the main reason of allowing more schools to participate in the state tournament that may not have otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great debaters that I really respect (admittedly, most are already mentioned... hope this isn't too repetitive, but i thought it'd be nice to get back on track):

 

Jesi Egan - definitely the fastest debater i've heard in the state of KS this year (and much more...), and still incredibly clear

 

Michelle Hammer - had two amazing rounds against her and her colleague, Li Hu. the best thing about this is that, whether it be the K or politics, her flows were always crystal clear and neat. much appreciated by everyone, i think. oh... and if you're reading this, i hit alex for the sexist language, just so you know :)

 

Sarah Weiner - never had the chance to debate against her and her colleague, but i did get to watch a very strategic 1AR... she really seems to know how to pick out the important stuff and condense a round.

 

Stephanie Atwood - i really wish i'd had a chance to have a round against her and ebling. last year, she was amazing, and, as proven by the finish at state, this year was even better.

 

Karen Lickteig - she and her colleague won the emporia tournament, what more proof of greatness could you need :)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll add on too - @ state, 6th round, we hit a team from Winfield that wasn't John Cook/Gill. I forgot their names/code, but one of them looked like carrot top and the other was this kinda Asian kid. They ran 8 minutes of secrutization is the 1NC, and we would have actually answered it if not for the judge's paradigm saying "I don't vote for K's or CP's."

 

Basically, they had really crazy good understanding of Nietzschean philosophy for not being seniors, and w/e they are, I predict them to be the next John Cook.

 

The "kinda Asian" kid is Joseph Astrab; he's a senior.

 

But the redhead is Taylor Stevenson. Learn this name; it is what should be used to describe Winfield High School debate next year. I have made a disciple out of him and moreover his personality is as abrasive or more abrasive than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the redhead is Taylor Stevenson. Learn this name; it is what should be used to describe Winfield High School debate next year. I have made a disciple out of him and moreover his personality is as abrasive or more abrasive than mine.

 

I don't know what Nietzsche would have to say about this whole 'disciple' business. Seems awfully similar to forcing one to your own ethics for the sake of solving the imperfections of the world John...

 

Nietzsche is turning in his grave good sir. :(

 

Also, Taylor's reaction to my partner's 1AR was priceless. My partner basically says "er... your paradigm says no K's. They've reuined education. I'm sitting down early", and Taylor had that whole "I'm gonna flip out and fucking kill you" reaction, including the angry waving of the arms and 'bleh' look on his face. I would have loved to get into an actual debate with him, but I wasn't letting the judge that round label me as a 'K debater' - not with her paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I'm pointing out what I see. A group of my peers, in the two speaker champ junk, posting about one another and how great they/their coaches are.

 

Well, I'm glad that my presence ruined what was such an academic discussion. We should have a separate forum on how great the non-elitist teams and squads are.

 

can BVN join this non-elitist forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we're all thinking it, but I think it ought to be said:

 

Alex Bonnet is undoubtedly the worst debater in the state of Kansas. And because they did pretty well, that probably makes Mary Yanik the best debater in Kansas.

 

Now of course, I might be a little biased here, but you all had better watch out for Anderson/Hess next year. Assuming the entire partnership can stay awake throughout a whole tournament next year, they'll kick some ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i was a state runner up my sophomore year. i wasn't a national qualifier and i was a 4-4 bracket monster during the whole year. you've got two guesses as to which division at state i performed so well in.

 

flukes rarely happen in 2-speak. people find value in 4 speak. i don't. elitism? Such a designation holds little weight in a world where debate itself is wrought with elitism. its a matter of evaluating the value of debate in general versus the value of 4 speak and i think such tournaments, though entertaining, are not nearly as indicative of overall debate skill as 2-speak. That's not an evaluation of coaches or teams that participate in that division, only the concept of one aff team, one neg team and an alternate.

 

i would not shed a tear over the death of 4-speaker debate.

 

I would not shed a tear over teams who lose for never talking about the resolution. 4 speaker requires an intimate knowledge of each case and not just the same argument in each debate.

 

That being said, the 2 speaker state champ. is obviously a great team. It's just people like oncler (just b/c he/she didnt do well) don't like the tournament, try and ruin it's value for everyone else.

 

I think the question should be raised...why do many "big teams" not attend 4 speak? I think it's because they're indoctrinated in a system of crossx.com and such that bashes it as inferior debate. It's not. Before all of you start saying, "thats not what i said", it's not an attack against everyone.

 

btw- BVN is the representation of elitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not shed a tear over teams who lose for never talking about the resolution. 4 speaker requires an intimate knowledge of each case and not just the same argument in each debate.

 

Um... talk with the 4 speak champs who went for dedev every round.

 

That being said, the 2 speaker state champ. is obviously a great team. It's just people like oncler (just b/c he/she didnt do well) don't like the tournament, try and ruin it's value for everyone else.

 

John went to TX cuz it's a round robin and doesn't like the state tournament because he prefers constant champ-style debate. He never bashed the tournament - he said it wasn't his preferential tournament. Get your facts straight.

 

I think the question should be raised...why do many "big teams" not attend 4 speak? I think it's because they're indoctrinated in a system of crossx.com and such that bashes it as inferior debate. It's not. Before all of you start saying, "thats not what i said", it's not an attack against everyone.

 

4 speaker isn't bashed. Some people like it - some don't. Stop making warrantless rants. That's my job. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not shed a tear over teams who lose for never talking about the resolution. 4 speaker requires an intimate knowledge of each case and not just the same argument in each debate.[/Quote]

 

I went as an alternate to 4-speaker when I was in high school. There was never an in-depth debate. "Talking about the resolution" usually consists of 90 bad analytic arguments and a funding press. Let's be pretty honest here. This is just such a laughable claim. You should do stand-up.

 

I think the question should be raised...why do all the "big teams" not attend 2 speak? I think it's because they're indoctrinated in a system of crossx.com and such that bashes it as inferior debate. It's not. Before all of you start saying, "thats not what i said", it's not an attack against everyone.

 

This is pretty much dumb. I'll be honest, I see a lot of bad debates and some good ones. One of the best debates I've seen this year was by a team that almost nobody considers a champ team (no offense Sevedge). The dude just did well in this debate. There weren't 400 cards read in the debate and it was specifically about the resolution. I've seen debates very similar to that that were pretty poor. There really isn't a "cross-x.com" system.

 

Except Ziegler. That dude's kind of a tool. (hugs and kisses, Derek).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Students rarely decide what state tournament they go to. Usually coaches do. There's no correlation to it getting bashed on cross-x and the lack of attendence by "big schools". You're just an idiot. There's no reason why two speak debaters don't require the same intimate knowledge of cases to do well.

 

I think schools choose not to attend four speak or two speak because their coaches just like one or the other for various reasons. Four speak is sort of weird when you think about it. Kids spend all year debating on both sides of the resolution but when state rolls around, you get two teams, one who debates aff 7 times the other neg 7 times. The regular season really only prepares a team half-way for four speak.

 

Also, it would suck to have your aff win all 7 debates and have your neg lose all 7. The success is put more on the tandem and the school, not the individual team. Maybe that's a good thing, but maybe some coaches want to reward their individual teams with a shot at bearing the two speak state title.

 

I don't know that this has anything to do with elitism. Blue Valley always owns up at four speak and do so because Riffer prefers it for his own personal reasons. I don't know that Blue Valley is any smaller than those who prefer two speak or any less succesful than these "elite" schools.

 

Think what you'd like checkers. At the end of the day, the answer is different strokes for different folks. Everyone needs to stop psychoanalyzing every decision by anyone involved in Kansas debate. Shit happens sometimes. Let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not shed a tear over teams who lose for never talking about the resolution.

oh c'mon.. not even one?

4 speaker requires an intimate knowledge of each case and not just the same argument in each debate.

hmmmm.... if i was aff at 4spkr, i would probably only need to know about a handful of cases, knowing that there were only so many that i could run.

if i was neg at 4spkr, i would need to know only as many as every single 2spkr team needs to know.

thus, 100% of 2spkr teams theoretically need the intimate knowledge you speak of to succeed.

only 50% of 4spkr teams do.

that's devastating to your analysis.

I think the question should be raised...why do many "big teams" not attend 4 speak? I think it's because they're indoctrinated in a system of crossx.com and such that bashes it as inferior debate. It's not. Before all of you start saying, "thats not what i said", it's not an attack against everyone.

you are so ridiculously wrong it's not even funny. so i'm answering this, 2spkr style (/sarcasm)

off your question:

1. because they put too much effort on both sides to limit themselves to one side for theoretically one of the more important debates of the year

2. because they'd rather spend time at BVW than BVclassic

3. because they value the switch-side aspect of debate

4. because they would prefer state to be similar to the tournaments they're used to succeeding at

5. because they like the thrill of elim rounds

6. because 7 rounds of the same stuff can get hella boring

7. because they don't want to rely on the success of another team for their own success and would rather be as much in control as possible

8. because they perceive the judges at 2spkr are more in their favor than the ones in 4spkr

 

on the bottom:

most people don't know that nathan, tom, tom's partner, and i went to 4speaker regionals and didn't qualify to state last year, then went on to win 2speaker state. it's completely a judging thing. has nothing to do with 'inferior debate'. it's stylistic preference. i might prefer to have a judge that scoffs upon hearing "minor repair--you just increase funds" but that doesn't mean i think that style of debate is inferior. it just means i think it's less fun.

btw- BVN is the representation of elitism.

okay, the jig is up. you don't know what 'elitism' means, do you? uh huh. that's what i thought.

(no offense Sevedge)

w00t.

and, yeah. we're no champ team. agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Students rarely decide what state tournament they go to. Usually coaches do. .

AMEN. I would have loved to be at 2 speak, but instead we got stuck being in four speaker. And ziegler, if by the 4-speaker team that dedeved every round, you are implying us. We only dedeved two rounds =p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Bonnet is undoubtedly the worst debater in the state of Kansas.

I'll attest to this. I can't think of an argument that we could go for in the 2nr that I took in the block. The fact that we win rounds either proves the existence of god or the terrible quality of some teams. You decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I judged Atwood/Ebeling three times this year, and I think they are one of the best, if not the best team I judged. Stephanie Atwood is the only person that consistently left me without many comments for improvement. I had no idea Peter was a junior... he'll tear it up with anyone next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the question should be raised...why do many "big teams" not attend 4 speak? I think it's because they're indoctrinated in a system of crossx.com and such that bashes it as inferior debate.

 

Or it might be because KSHSAA ships them off to a regional location two hours away and then declines to cancel the event during an ice storm.

 

I think debate is generally worthwhile regardless of the format, but after this year, I'm pretty sure I'm done entering four speaker regionals.

 

EDIT FOR CLARITY: I regard what happened at regionals this year to be the fault of the administering organization, not of the hosting schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or it might be because KSHSAA ships them off to a regional location two hours away and then declines to cancel the event during an ice storm.

 

I think debate is generally worthwhile regardless of the format, but after this year, I'm pretty sure I'm done entering four speaker regionals.

 

You always makes good poinrt Stadb9. I didn't know about that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You always makes good poinrt Stadb9. I didn't know about that situation.

 

Sometimes I think people forget that coaches read this forum. Mr. Wood probably read you insulting BVN today and I bet Riffer knows what's going on too.

 

Maybe some of the things you say have merit, but you package them harshly?

 

Everyone needs to just get along,

JZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we please move away from 4speak vrs 2speak, and X school not getting props, and move this back to a celebration of the good debate that happened in Kansas this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i completely forgot this, but B D is totally one of the best judges. B D's flow is better than anybody's I've seen. He flows everything. Tag's, Cites, Text, literally everything. I was glad to get him once last year. It was too bad I didn't get him more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can we please move away from 4speak vrs 2speak, and X school not getting props, and move this back to a celebration of the good debate that happened in Kansas this year?

 

Im inclined to agree with BD ;)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Michelle Hammer - had two amazing rounds against her and her colleague, Li Hu. the best thing about this is that, whether it be the K or politics, her flows were always crystal clear and neat. much appreciated by everyone, i think. oh... and if you're reading this, i hit alex for the sexist language, just so you know :)

 

 

I judged the round between you two at DCI and let me reiterate how great that round was. It was certainly the best I saw all year and one of the best I've ever seen in my 10 years of judging. You guys may have fallen a little short, but you earned mad respect from me. Good luck in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I judged the round between you two at DCI and let me reiterate how great that round was. It was certainly the best I saw all year and one of the best I've ever seen in my 10 years of judging. You guys may have fallen a little short, but you earned mad respect from me. Good luck in college.

Eh I just need to cut better criticism solves realism cards :P . Then again it's not like I'm ever going to be doing that kind of debate in high school again so whatevs.

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...