Jump to content
BlocksfromBlock

Wake Forest

Recommended Posts

Can someone please post the packet if at all possible? Speakers would be cool too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have my packet with me but below are some random speaks for varsity that I kind of remember.

 

1) Patrick Elwell (St. ignatius, 1st seed)

2) Michael Carlotti (cathedral prep)

3) Tyler He (cps)

 

5) Lee Reed (payton)

6) John Trevin (payton)

 

?) Ft. Lauderdale (sp?)

10) Osahan Okundaye (neenah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have my packet with me but below are some random speaks for varsity that I kind of remember.

 

1) Patrick Elwell (St. ignatius, 1st seed)

2) Michael Carlotti (cathedral prep)

3) Tyler He (cps)

 

5) Lee Reed (payton)

6) John Trevin (payton)

 

?) fort lawdale (sp?)

10) Osahan Okundaye (neenah)

It's Ft. Lauderdale

 

Mike, was the RFD for the semi round based on the timeframe argument? I couldn't stick around to here it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Patrick Elwell (St. Ignatius)

2. Michael Carlotti (Cathedral Prep)

3. Tyler He (CPS)

5. Lee Reed (Walter Payton)

6. John Trevino (Walter Payton)

10. Osahan Okundaye (Neenah)

11. Anuj Panday (Chattahoochee)

12. Nahum Seifesailaisse (Westminster)

17. Neha Malik (Westminster)

25. Brian Shim (Berkeley Prep)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Patrick Elwell (St. Ignatius)

2. Michael Carlotti (Cathedral Prep)

3. Tyler He (CPS)

5. Lee Reed (Walter Payton)

6. John Trevino (Walter Payton)

10. Osahan Okundaye (Neenah)

11. Anuj Panday (Chattahoochee)

12. Nahum Seifesailaisse (Westminster)

14. Minh Lam (Grady)

15. Bree Gray-Jordan (Grady)

17. Neha Malik (Westminster)

24. John Holland (Grady)

25. Brian Shim (Berkeley Prep)

 

updated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the last time: tyler got 2nd, not me.

 

Melvin: Crichton voted neg just on the CP solving case plus net benefit, Schultz and Hill both voted on a) no net benefit (Mandlebaum) and B) motive behind the counterplan=preventing large scale war which means no solvency for structural violence + turns their impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somone care to explain why the fact the CP tries to solve nuke war doesnt solve structural violence, when it does the same thing as the case? why does motive matter at all?? also how does structural violence turn their impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
somone care to explain why the fact the CP tries to solve nuke war doesnt solve structural violence, when it does the same thing as the case? why does motive matter at all?? also how does structural violence turn their impact?

Well the way I understand it is when we focus on certain outcomes and end oriented driven results, it ignores the meaning and intent embedded in the initial action. So when you try and solve for all these nuclear wars, they can use the case as a disad to the counterplan. I think you'd need to win the argument that nuclear war is the ultimate immorality to win the counterplan though. Cuomo/kato take the spin that nuclear war focus ignores the structural violence, so its like the cp takes a step and then goes back. Just my take on it though ;o Nice job in finals though cathedral prep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats Hilary! i mean winning wake, you badass...

 

haha thanks garrett

Also, congrats to mike and leo

And has anyone seen the results packet? I've heard it's on joy of tournaments but I haven't seen it . . .?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, your coach probably picked it up. You're referring to the one with all the speaker points/rounds/winloss etc, because we picked that up, if not it should be mailed to you.

 

Nice job too^^ perming a counter interp is a nice thing I learned on t ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant like the elim brackets and stuff, because I don't know about all the rounds. I heard it was up on JoT but haven't seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
somone care to explain why the fact the CP tries to solve nuke war doesnt solve structural violence, when it does the same thing as the case? why does motive matter at all?? also how does structural violence turn their impact?

 

Cuomo isn't just talking about what policies do but what the motive behind such policies are. Even if the counterplan were to "solve" the plan, the motive behind the counterplan was to prevent collapse of the alliance, structural violence only being a side note. Cuomo impacts this by claiming these motives prevent further response to structural harms and allow them to continue, which is articulated as an inevitability of war as well as a big solvency deficit to structural violence.

 

I think something you weren't considering in your evaluation of the round was the Mandlebaum ev - no risk of a net benefit means any risk of a solvency deficit to either systemic adv is pretty damning.

 

And our argument on why structural violence turns their impacts are derived from the gilligan and cuomo ev - gilligan-->structural violence is the root cause of behavioral and epistemological violence and cuomo-->focusing on preventing large scale conflict makes those impacts inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cuomo isn't just talking about what policies do but what the motive behind such policies are. Even if the counterplan were to "solve" the plan, the motive behind the counterplan was to prevent collapse of the alliance, structural violence only being a side note. Cuomo impacts this by claiming these motives prevent further response to structural harms and allow them to continue, which is articulated as an inevitability of war as well as a big solvency deficit to structural violence.

 

I think something you weren't considering in your evaluation of the round was the Mandlebaum ev - no risk of a net benefit means any risk of a solvency deficit to either systemic adv is pretty damning.

 

And our argument on why structural violence turns their impacts are derived from the gilligan and cuomo ev - gilligan-->structural violence is the root cause of behavioral and epistemological violence and cuomo-->focusing on preventing large scale conflict makes those impacts inevitable.

 

VACUOUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for the last time: tyler got 2nd, not me.

 

Melvin: Crichton voted neg just on the CP solving case plus net benefit, Schultz and Hill both voted on a) no net benefit (Mandlebaum) and B) motive behind the counterplan=preventing large scale war which means no solvency for structural violence + turns their impact.

I was somewhat disapointed (from an education standpoint, not strategic) that MBA didn't go for the K. I'd just like to hear more Heidegger rounds, they are always intresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was somewhat disapointed (from an education standpoint, not strategic) that MBA didn't go for the K. I'd just like to hear more Heidegger rounds, they are always intresting.

Never heard heidegger actually run well, would have been cool if they had stuck with it!

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...