Jump to content
6256309

Best CO teams of the last 5 years

Recommended Posts

nathan, i heard gabe stein tapped into the colorado master database ultra innerwebs. pure hacker skills

 

greg, i hope that didn't take you more than 5 minutes.

 

yall listen to logan now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not want to take sides about this whole thing

 

but I do have a question

 

some of you kids are tossing crazy stats for getting into this fantasy tournament

 

like all time win/loss records and win percentages against certain teams and such

 

so what I want to know

 

is how the fuck you know all that/keep track of it

cause that is some crazy stuff

 

I know its been a couple years since I was in the CO debate thing

 

but I can't even remember if luke and I ever won an out round

let alone if we ever debated someone from somewhere in semis of something

 

but that probably has something to with my other activities

 

I counted on my fingers while I was posting. I dunno how other people did it, but I can only assume similar methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You gave Ponderosa the bye over us?! We'll see you in sems you bastard...

 

i think you got it man. since ritika can't be cloned, safaya will be going maverick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
since ritika can't be cloned, safaya will be going maverick.

 

Damn, I was hoping there would be a Kent Neil/Ritika vs. Kent Safaya/Ritika matchup, now that would be a sick round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey all,

i think this thread is pretty screwed and engendering a lot of negative sentiment between really good friendly debaters. rapp thanks a lot for the nod but i feel that we are not even close to the best team of the last 5 years. i can think of three teams in particular which i think will always be/were better -- Ponderosa NR, GW BS, Luke and Nathan. one of the things i like about the debate scene in CO right now is that a lot of the teams are pretty close with each other, and i would hate to see that ruined by some infantile squabbling over who is a better team. i think that people worried about not being on the list, not high enough, etc, should check themselves and realize it doesnt mean shit. those on it should also realize it doesnt mean shit, but collectively we should all get ready to kick some ass at nats.

 

will

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey all,

i think this thread is pretty screwed and engendering a lot of negative sentiment between really good friendly debaters. rapp thanks a lot for the nod but i feel that we are not even close to the best team of the last 5 years. i can think of three teams in particular which i think will always be/were better -- Ponderosa NR, GW BS, Luke and Nathan. one of the things i like about the debate scene in CO right now is that a lot of the teams are pretty close with each other, and i would hate to see that ruined by some infantile squabbling over who is a better team. i think that people worried about not being on the list, not high enough, etc, should check themselves and realize it doesnt mean shit. those on it should also realize it doesnt mean shit, but collectively we should all get ready to kick some ass at nats.

 

will

 

Seconded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, that's the problem with you kids today. You and with your "friendships" don't understand the value of some good old-fashioned blood-feuds. Now return to squabbling amongst yourselves at once!!

 

 

"Eat this pinecone. It will amuse me...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, there are a lot of recent teams Rapp knows nothing about who are not on the list and deserve to be. This list is basically all the teams from Rapp's heydey plus a few teams he's heard of lately. The seeding has been done the same way, quite clearly. Rapp has no clue about teams since he graduated, except that Will and Alex won fourth at nats. How about breaking at Berkeley, ASU (3rd seed, 1st and 5th speakers), USC (10th seed), and Alta this year? How about a lifetime 28-12 circuit prelims record?

 

The point is it's pretty much bullshit - and this is coming from someone on the list. However, Greg, my man, let's not try to legitimize this shit by trying to get on the list or improve our seeding or whatever. And for that matter, what's the need for a damn ranking system? Let's just call it ridiculoustupid rants by a dude who is almost completely unqualified to speak on the subject, and leave it at that. There, I've said my shit about it after staying quiet for a while. Maybe it took seeing the "seedings" for me to become a bit annoyed, but whatever, this is dumb.

 

It's especially dumb because as I'm sitting here ending my last year of debate, I find myself wondering what it all has meant. Why did I do this this whole time, what will be my "legacy" so to speak? This whole thing is stupid because being remembered among the best shouldn't really matter. What matters, especially in Colorado, is our contribution to the debate community as a whole. I hope Jordan and my contribution will be opening up debate for more people (having basically started our program from scratch at a smaller, less affluent school) and hopefully bringing more open, liberal and circuit-style debate to our very conservative state. Though we never won a circuit out round (by the judges, anyways), hopefully our modest success will lead to more teams in the future attending competitive camps, traveling more, and eventually getting back to times when regional teams were winning circuit tournaments (if there ever was a time).

 

In that light, shouldn't we be celebrating teams for what they were and what they contributed at their time instead of having one dude randomly compare teams with other teams that never hit and he doesn't know shit about?

 

You get a big thumbs up.

 

Phil, you're an idiot.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey all,

i think this thread is pretty screwed and engendering a lot of negative sentiment between really good friendly debaters. rapp thanks a lot for the nod but i feel that we are not even close to the best team of the last 5 years. i can think of three teams in particular which i think will always be/were better -- Ponderosa NR, GW BS, Luke and Nathan. one of the things i like about the debate scene in CO right now is that a lot of the teams are pretty close with each other, and i would hate to see that ruined by some infantile squabbling over who is a better team. i think that people worried about not being on the list, not high enough, etc, should check themselves and realize it doesnt mean shit. those on it should also realize it doesnt mean shit, but collectively we should all get ready to kick some ass at nats.

 

will

 

Which is why we need to get back to the real topic at hand...

 

OUR MEATY BEATY BIG AND BOUNCY

COX-N'-BAWLS!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure why I've become the official CX transsexual as deemed by someone I don't even know, but it seems I angered Peter Joeris somehow. Are you upset that I've never let you see my freak penis? Seriously, it's not even that big. Get over it already.

 

It's not that hard to see your [freak] penis. You should be proud of the sheer girth of your wang.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when i thought this thread was going to lose its entertainment value, Anant steps in to clean things up...excellent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey!!! Don't make me stop this car.....

 

Let's just settle the egos down. Here's my perspective:

1) Rapp is wrong to include a time frame for Colorado debate when he just hasn't been around enough to know the skills of the current crop of debaters. Now, if he had opened it up to nominations & voting, that would be something different. But when he relies on his own judgment and experience -- the list and brackets should be limited to his experience and knowledge.

 

2) The current Colorado debaters need to chill. So some OLD guy (hey, that was fun to write :) ) doesn't pick you for his list? Make your own poll or list or bracket. Ignore Rapp, this is not a big deal -- besides all you Colorado debaters (except NoCo) should be cutting cards to get ready for nat quals. You shouldn't have time to be foolin' with this.

 

3) Even if Rapp knew everyone of you and your skills, it is IMPOSSIBLE to single out teams or individuals the way he has tried. He has mentioned some terrific teams, but there are so many variables to great debating -- do you evaluate smarts over clarity, research over brains, commitment to the community over ability to debate theory? Is someone who mastered and exceled at using generic arguments better or worse than someone who created unique positions? What about a team that takes a camp case and runs with it, but knows it better than anyone could? Are they better or worse than a team that researches and creates their own aff?

 

4) Lastly, Rapp is a wuss for excluding CheyEast. But I know this is just foolishness and fun and I'm happy to celebrate a lot of these debaters who I've come to know, respect and love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I object to my 3-seeding. I have basically pwned Chris Jones for my entire life, including voting against him at the NDT last weekend (sorry dude).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey!!! Don't make me stop this car.....

 

Let's just settle the egos down. Here's my perspective:

1) Rapp is wrong to include a time frame for Colorado debate when he just hasn't been around enough to know the skills of the current crop of debaters. Now, if he had opened it up to nominations & voting, that would be something different. But when he relies on his own judgment and experience -- the list and brackets should be limited to his experience and knowledge.

 

Sandy is pretty much right - we're all on the same page, greg, will, gabe, anant, etc.

 

Phil really doesn't know what he's talking about recently, and his opinions are his own - most of us probably disagree for one reason or another. Greg made a warranted argument for why we would be on a legit list; he wasnt bitching about not being on Rapp's. let rapp and the "OLD" ies have their fun. We all know that he, and they, in the broader sense, don't know whats going on.

 

Kelly - I'm not saying everyone included is an oldie. I used Sandy's words. and yes, you probably know some of us. I mean no offense; sorry if it came across that way. I'm agreeing that the list doesnt matter, and as sandy said, is not reflective of current CO debaters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take insult to being classified as an "oldie" by being included in the damn bracket and at the same time being told that I don't know what's going on with "current debaters" when I have judged a large portion of you this year and debated an even larger number of you last year. Just saying. The way I see it, is that it's Rapp being Rapp and that it really has no impact or relevance. It's terrible entertainment at best. Even these last few posts of "yeah, it's all good" are still awfully defensive. Take Sandy's advice and do your own or something. Or an objective something. Or just cut cards. Really, anything that Sandy suggested. Yeah. So I have been really redundant. Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take insult to being classified as an "oldie" by being included in the damn bracket and at the same time being told that I don't know what's going on with "current debaters" when I have judged a large portion of you this year and debated an even larger number of you last year. Just saying. The way I see it, is that it's Rapp being Rapp and that it really has no impact or relevance. It's terrible entertainment at best. Even these last few posts of "yeah, it's all good" are still awfully defensive. Take Sandy's advice and do your own or something. Or an objective something. Or just cut cards. Really, anything that Sandy suggested. Yeah. So I have been really redundant. Yep.

 

I haven't had such a laugh since Loghry started talking to me again ;) . I'm glad I've got Kelly brainwashed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeff: an independent investigatory committee is looking into allegations of bribes taken from the seeding staff.

 

kelly: i object to my thread as terrible entertainment. if you didn't find rants from greg, gabe, or anant to be hilarious you have no soul. like,rly k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

round 1 results....

 

crossxmadness3.GIF

 

21 Rocky d. 22 Durango. Doss goes for his famous non-unique flipper disad, this time new in the 2NR.

 

19 G-Dub d. 20 Centaurus. Gabe refuses to debate, arguing his amazing sweet 28-12 circuit record precludes him from any riff-raff like centaurus. in a close 2-1, the judges agree

 

16 Ft Collins d. 15 Creek. Despite Doug's incredible 2AR, it isn't enough to make up for 3 dropped disads by McCall in the 1

 

17 Eaglecrest d. 18 Pueblo. Sarah Whitney, getting excited about a fast panel immediately pulls out a non-topical performative "fuko" aff despite the topic being NMD good/bad. eaglecrest, seeing the policy panel, reluctantly go for framework and joyner cards. anant, self-proclaimed pueblo TW roadie, protests the panel for 30 minutes to no avail

 

13 Kent d. 14 Vora. In a better foucault debate, ritika rolls out the K. this debate could've been a lot closer had vora not left in the block to go play a computer game

 

12 Canon City d. 11 Kent. Safaya holds up well going maverick; Logan's 2NR is a-spec a-spec a-spec, Safaya's primary defense is reasonability good and something about lord of the rings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy is pretty much right - we're all on the same page, greg, will, gabe, anant, etc.

 

Greg made a warranted argument for why we would be on a legit list; he wasnt bitching about not being on Rapp's. let rapp and the "OLD" ies have their fun. We all know that he, and they, in the broader sense, don't know whats going on.

 

 

""Testing, attention please, feel the tension soon as someone mentions me. Here's my ten cents, my two cents is free"

 

Remember those elementary school situtations where someone would tlel everyone to be quiet but then the kids got louder because everyone would shout "be quiet!" at the top of their lungs? That's what this is. And hell, it's a mainstay of mountain region threads to break into some good-natured pointless jarring at each other every year or so. I haven't posted this much this often in about 6 months, so it's nice to see things stay interesting. I guess its also the nature of debate in general that people take offense to just about everything.

 

""...it's easy to misinterpret at first cuz when i speak it's toungue-in-cheek"

 

 

Last year on the college edebate they continued a tradition of roasting some of the best outgoing seniors in the community, they called it the debater's choice awards. Those biographies are always funny, always waaay outrageous, always ridiculous, always tounge in cheek. Oh yeah and usually full of inside jokes i don't really care about anyways. Unfortunately someone took offense to one of them last year and they were discontinued like that, so edebate readers were treated to about 2 weeks of back and forth accusations, posturing, and self-righteous line-by lines. THe worst part is that the girl who took offense to one of the biographies probably had a legit concern, but after about a week you got the impresssion that nobody genuinely cared. The character of the discussion was all about winning the argument and winning edebate points. Whatever the hell those are worht.

 

 

It's a double edged sword. To call for people to seperate their debate personae from the way they conduct their lives is to ask them to be less passionate about an activity they love. Debate's intensity is what brings so many of us (or me, at least) back for more and more. the fact that it's harder and harder to seperate the 'debate logan' from the 'real-life logan' no longer bothers me. yet it's exactly this seperation that is couched as 'maturity' for most people. What's the point? I'm not sure, but i'm getting there.

 

Heh, those stupid college kids know nothing about debate as it is now. Not like they judge us or anything...

 

Perhaps it's a biproduct of the CO debate environment that students are engendered with the idea that their particular style of debate is cutting edge. If a lot of judges don't get it, it must be because you're too smart for them. If i ever coach a high school team, i think the first thing i'd have them do that i never did as a debater is just sit down with a judge and watch a round. Don't have to talk with the judge. Hell, wouldn't even require them to flow. Just sit in the same place physically and metaphorically (as in, do not enroll in the tournament) The things you see differently are remarkable.

 

I remember when i could recall every single high school debate round i debated and the result if you told me the tournament and the year. I could do it up through senior year. Didn't think much of it at the time and maybe it's because CO debate usually has 3 round tournamnets ;) but what suprised me is that it took about a month of college debate for me to be unable to remember the names of most of the tournaments i went to, let alone how i did at them. I don't think its a sign of alienation, just a change in priorities.

 

I love the advice to "just go cut cards." It's generally good debate wisdom. Problem w/ a teamate? Just go cut some more cards. Cross-x got you down? More cards. Honestly it's good. Ironically i have a tougher time remembering which cards I cut than anything else.

 

"Debate is like magic, there's a certain feelin' you get

when you real and you spit an' people are feelin' your shit

This is your moment, and every single minute you spend

tryin' to hold on to it cause you may never get it again

So while you're in it, try to get as much shit as you can

And when your run is over just admit when it's at it's end

Cause I'm at the end of my wits with half the shit gets in

I got a list here's the order of my list that it's in

It goes Buntin, Tcram, Crowe and Jonsie

Martin from Chey East, Will J and Canon City

But in this industry I'm the cause of a LOT of envy

So when I'm not put on this list, the shit does NOT offend me

That's why you see me walkin around like nothin's botherin' me

Even though half you people got a fuckin' problem with me

You hate it but you know respect you got to give me

The press's wet dream like Bobby and Whitney...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 Ft Collins d. 15 Creek. Despite Doug's incredible 2AR, it isn't enough to make up for 3 dropped disads by McCall in the 1

 

13 Kent d. 14 Vora. In a better foucault debate, ritika rolls out the K. this debate could've been a lot closer had vora not left in the block to go play a computer game

 

12 Canon City d. 11 Kent. Safaya holds up well going maverick; Logan's 2NR is a-spec a-spec a-spec, Safaya's primary defense is reasonability good and something about lord of the rings

 

I'm pretty sure all these things really happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I counted on my fingers while I was posting. I dunno how other people did it, but I can only assume similar methods.

 

Nathan has trouble counting. even on his fingers.

  • Upvote 1

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...