Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
extempreacher

Hillcrest

Recommended Posts

holy shit i struck no judges no would i ever. lies lies lies. only carthage strikes judges. understandably since people do "hate" you( are you kidding ur not important enough to hate), but seriously man up. no one is that biased to where if you win a round they won't vote for you. you insult the integrity of these people christian and kevin which furthers their "hatred" of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and did christian rally win sophomore year. i can't remember at what point i started kicking his ass.(no offense i totally think he's equal to me, but i went on a christian kill streak after you beat me a few times in a row).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
christian johns and sha evans won hillcrest their sophomore year, against kickapoo...

 

from a factual perspective (not a "hate" of carthage)...this is just impossible.

christian being a senior means that his sophomore year would've been 2005...

2005 Justin Todd and Jamie P. won.

2006 Brynden and Joel won.

2007 again they won.

 

perhaps it was 04 and he was just an incredible freshman or maybe this is christian's fifth year of debate...or maybe they won reg. it is just no...jamie remarked at the tournament about this being the 3rd year in a row for nixa winning hillcrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from a factual perspective (not a "hate" of carthage)...this is just impossible.

christian being a senior means that his sophomore year would've been 2005...

2005 Justin Todd and Jamie P. won.

2006 Brynden and Joel won.

2007 again they won.

 

perhaps it was 04 and he was just an incredible freshman or maybe this is christian's fifth year of debate...or maybe they won reg. it is just no...jamie remarked at the tournament about this being the 3rd year in a row for nixa winning hillcrest.

 

Parkview over Greenwood in 2004... YEAH BABY!

 

-Adam Testerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So his justification for complaining is that he didn't win the same tournament two years later in a different division?

 

where do you see a complaint in "hillcrest made me sad :-(" ?! i'm pretty sure that christian made it perfectly clear that the meaning of that post was, he would miss debating at hillcrest, especially because it was the first tournament he won. if anything, he was complaining about not being able to debate at that tournament anymore... if you still don't get this, then i give up.

 

will, what are you talking about? manning up? i don't think we made the excuse that we lost the round becuase of the judges we had. i'm sorry for thinking you struck the same judge (even though i could have swore you told me you did...) i think christian made it perfectly clear that nixa deserved the win in that round. in every aspect. they were just better than us... how are we fueling people's hatred for us? what reason have we given anybody to hate us? maybe, just maybe will pearson has reason to hate us, because christian told him that he "deserved a big fuck you"... maybe, i don't know...

 

does the "debate community" really have a big problem with us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a total non-participant in this argument, I'll post my thoughts. I'm sitting in a Panera Bread in Rolla after taking my SAT II's, waiting for Sam Rowland and I don't really have anything better to do.

 

Carthage friends,

 

I think you are 'hated' because people think you are slimey. A lot of folks think your aff is non-topical, that you are slimey, that you win on arguments that aren't very smart. This is probably because you haven't gone to camp, and gotten the sort of proper indoctrination that we "good kids" got. I think a lot of people also don't like you because they still have a bad taste in their mouth about Carthage after that Levi kid was there. He was pretty lame.

 

Frankly, I don't think any of these reasons are very good. I certainly don't dislike you guys.

 

There's a real strong pressure in MO to separate the elite 12-boxes-full-of-camp-files-I-read-sweet-args kids from the I-never-go-to-camp-and-like-to-win-the-way-my-coach-tells-me-to kind of kids. People among the former group stress some sort of purity of approach, the eradication of slime, the perfection of logic, the necessity of appealing to an ideal judge that wouldn't have the same idiosyncrasies that MO bus drivers frequently possess.

 

There's an also a similar perception, or so it seems to me, among the non-camp-goers that they can't compete, that the kids going fast are being unfair, and that they get jobbed.

 

I have no idea why when Carthage debates they are being 'slimey', but when WillyG debates he is being 'strategic.' I don't know why when JamieP says they got screwed by a lay, everyone agrees. When Carthage complains about a bad judge, everyone says they need to 'man up.' I've certainly had a number of rounds that I thought I should have won, but I don't think the way we approach these issues as a community is very productive.

 

This isn't something new. And I think it is one thing to think some kids suck at debate. Its something totally separate to be asses on cross-x.com. People were atrocious to Zain, and numerous others for the way they debate.

 

I think the "good kids" need to stop complaining about the "MO-style kids" and vice versa. Our community is getting smaller and smaller every year. You guys are all we've got. Weekends are a lot more fun if we all get along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a total non-participant in this argument, I'll post my thoughts. I'm sitting in a Panera Bread in Rolla after taking my SAT II's, waiting for Sam Rowland and I don't really have anything better to do.

 

Carthage friends,

 

I think you are 'hated' because people think you are slimey. A lot of folks think your aff is non-topical, that you are slimey, that you win on arguments that aren't very smart. This is probably because you haven't gone to camp, and gotten the sort of proper indoctrination that we "good kids" got. I think a lot of people also don't like you because they still have a bad taste in their mouth about Carthage after that Levi kid was there. He was pretty lame.

 

Frankly, I don't think any of these reasons are very good. I certainly don't dislike you guys.

 

There's a real strong pressure in MO to separate the elite 12-boxes-full-of-camp-files-I-read-sweet-args kids from the I-never-go-to-camp-and-like-to-win-the-way-my-coach-tells-me-to kind of kids. People among the former group stress some sort of purity of approach, the eradication of slime, the perfection of logic, the necessity of appealing to an ideal judge that wouldn't have the same idiosyncrasies that MO bus drivers frequently possess.

 

There's an also a similar perception, or so it seems to me, among the non-camp-goers that they can't compete, that the kids going fast are being unfair, and that they get jobbed.

 

I have no idea why when Carthage debates they are being 'slimey', but when WillyG debates he is being 'strategic.' I don't know why when JamieP says they got screwed by a lay, everyone agrees. When Carthage complains about a bad judge, everyone says they need to 'man up.' I've certainly had a number of rounds that I thought I should have won, but I don't think the way we approach these issues as a community is very productive.

 

This isn't something new. And I think it is one thing to think some kids suck at debate. Its something totally separate to be asses on cross-x.com. People were atrocious to Zain, and numerous others for the way they debate.

 

I think the "good kids" need to stop complaining about the "MO-style kids" and vice versa. Our community is getting smaller and smaller every year. You guys are all we've got. Weekends are a lot more fun if we all get along.

 

Nick makes some excellent points in his post. We need to stop criticizing and creating dichotomies within the Missouri community. The only way that the Missouri community can ever hope to relinquish itself of the stigma of being "bad at debate" is if everyone works together and helps each other improve.

 

There doesn't need to be wall between schools/teams just because there are stylistic differences between them. The camp-goers and non-camp goers as I will term them, can coexist in the same community, despite their differences. The only thing that this necessitates is that everyone stop publicly criticizing and ridiculing the teams with whom they disagree stylistically, argumentatively etc.

 

This is my first year in college debate, and there is a substantial difference between the behavior of the college and missoui debate communities. College is more about bettering the activity and helping people become better debaters. There isn't any stigmatization of those who don't speed (Louisville, Towson, Western Conn..) by those who do. There isn't any public ridicule of "bad debaters." Everything that is said and done, is constructive and for the purpose of improvement. Debaters talk to each other, share cites and arguments because they know it will better the activity. I think Missouri needs to take a lesson from this, and realize that if everyone can coexist - we can really produce great debaters. A natural consequence of this would be a resolution to a lot of the problems that are being addressed by this thread. (sliminess, bad argumentation etc.).

 

I know I wasn't the most accepting of different styles of debate in high school, but time changes things and from what I've experienced in college so far, is that it is universally beneficial for Missouri to function as a single community, than it is to publicly humiliate and criticize debaters for the way they debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick makes some excellent points in his post. We need to stop criticizing and creating dichotomies within the Missouri community. The only way that the Missouri community can ever hope to relinquish itself of the stigma of being "bad at debate" is if everyone works together and helps each other improve.

 

There doesn't need to be wall between schools/teams just because there are stylistic differences between them. The camp-goers and non-camp goers as I will term them, can coexist in the same community, despite their differences. The only thing that this necessitates is that everyone stop publicly criticizing and ridiculing the teams with whom they disagree stylistically, argumentatively etc.

 

This is my first year in college debate, and there is a substantial difference between the behavior of the college and missoui debate communities. College is more about bettering the activity and helping people become better debaters. There isn't any stigmatization of those who don't speed (Louisville, Towson, Western Conn..) by those who do. There isn't any public ridicule of "bad debaters." Everything that is said and done, is constructive and for the purpose of improvement. Debaters talk to each other, share cites and arguments because they know it will better the activity. I think Missouri needs to take a lesson from this, and realize that if everyone can coexist - we can really produce great debaters. A natural consequence of this would be a resolution to a lot of the problems that are being addressed by this thread. (sliminess, bad argumentation etc.).

 

I know I wasn't the most accepting of different styles of debate in high school, but time changes things and from what I've seen thus far from my experience, it is much more beneficial for everyone to function as a community, than it is to publicly humiliate and criticize debaters for the way they debate.

 

For once in my life I am not going to Zain bash, but I think you are fundamentally just wrong on the whole.

 

First of all, dichotomies are inevitable. Whether it be the camp goers and non camp goers, the kritikal or the policy, these sorts of things are inevitable. You debate in college zain you should read some of the philosophies that specifically talk about judges straight up NOT voting for performance style debate. Which means your teams like Louisville, Long Beach (who had their program cut), Illinois, and your current coach would lose debate rounds before they even walked into the room because of the preconceived notion that performance debate would destroy the activity. I am pretty good friends with Bill Neesen who was the coach at Long Beach and he has told me numerous times of scenarios such as these. Daryl Burch from Louisville would say the same thing, but they all did it because they loved the activity and wanted to honestly change it to be more inclusive.

 

Furthermore, you talk about the cohesiveness of the collegiate circuit and its called politicking. Just like people do in Congress, they will blow you, pay you and be your best friend to your face in hopes that YOU start talking that specific team up to your coaches and they get a rep ballot against a smaller team. I know we would all like to think judges don't rep out and intervene (and a good majority of them do stay honest about it), but it is just a fact of life. It is probably one of the reasons huge upsets don't happen every often. (Yes I know there are some amazing examples of upsets in the past, that's why I said not very often). Sharing cites doesn't make for good debates. They make for predictable debates. That doesn't increase the educational value only the substantive value. If you really think what the college level circuit is doing then why are so many programs losing their debate squad? Oregon, Long Beach, Wyoming is probably getting close (even though they only have 2 seniors this year and the rest are youngsters). The last time I checked e-debate was about 4 months ago where they provided an update on yearly how many schools are cutting their programs....it's quite a few. Doesn't sound like success and collaboration to me. In a world where the smaller schools don't bring back any hardware because they don't debate like the top teams do, regardless of sharing and discussions, they get cut, excluded, ended.

 

Your solution is for Missouri debaters to start "working together" and have some big revolution in order for them to stop being demonized as bad debate on the national level or any other level for that matter. In what world of a conservative, stock issues, no cp judging pool would that happen? I have read some ballots that judges have filled out this year not knowing who the Janjaweed were and literally referring to them as "Some JuJu people in Africa killing other blacks". Do you seriously think a united front of debaters could in any way change this view? I could literally give you all the cites in the world to every aff case I have seen and this would never change the out come of those minds.

 

 

So here is my proposal to you folks. Talk things over with your coaches first and foremost about what to do. I know one solution is going to tournaments in KS because a majority of the time they recruit college judges and I know a lot of them are willing to go to tournaments. Also, I don't know of a single area in Missouri right now where there isn't a college to recruit college debaters from. Stop narrowing things down to "you have to be an NDT debater in order to be good at debate" and excluding a lot of the Parli Schools. Try getting a whole of Truman State, Drury, MO State, Wash U, Mckendree University, UMKC, Missouri Southern, William Jewell and others to come and judge tournaments. Even though I live in Topeka I'd be more than happy to come and judge some tournaments and most likely will in the future. Furthermore, I know it is expensive to host tournaments on the HS level and a majority of the time you break even but if you offer to pay some critics you will actually get a good judging pool. Champ divisions are dwindling in MO so just throw them all into Champ (STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT DIRTY JUDGES IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THEY HAVE SEEN A TEAM BEFORE) and actually get some good quality debate rounds that make you think. There is no reason why (just a hypoethetical) Evan and Nick should ever lose a debate round on the argument "We can't consult the AU because we don't speak the African Language"...which I have seen happen to another team this year in Missouri.

 

Sorry for the long rant, this is all just frustrating.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For once in my life I am not going to Zain bash, but I think you are fundamentally just wrong on the whole.

 

First of all, dichotomies are inevitable. Whether it be the camp goers and non camp goers, the kritikal or the policy, these sorts of things are inevitable. You debate in college zain you should read some of the philosophies that specifically talk about judges straight up NOT voting for performance style debate. Which means your teams like Louisville, Long Beach (who had their program cut), Illinois, and your current coach would lose debate rounds before they even walked into the room because of the preconceived notion that performance debate would destroy the activity. I am pretty good friends with Bill Neesen who was the coach at Long Beach and he has told me numerous times of scenarios such as these. Daryl Burch from Louisville would say the same thing, but they all did it because they loved the activity and wanted to honestly change it to be more inclusive.

 

Tyler, I understand that there are still those on the college circuit who aren't accepting of different styles, particularly performance, however, my point was that teams like Louisville, Long Beach, Towson, Bard, etc, aren't publicly ridiculed nor are they said to be bad at debate. My entire point was that the Missouri community needs to refrain from criticizing styles and start helping those that they feel should improve. I understand that it is oftentimes difficult to convince people to change, however, I think its worth a shot. Also, your point about attending different tournaments that have qualified judging pools, is definitely a great idea. We're seeing this to a certain extent where a few schools are going to Dowling. I think, in the future, we might see more such schools. This would be massively beneficial to the Missouri debate community.

 

Furthermore, you talk about the cohesiveness of the collegiate circuit and its called politicking. Just like people do in Congress, they will blow you, pay you and be your best friend to your face in hopes that YOU start talking that specific team up to your coaches and they get a rep ballot against a smaller team. I know we would all like to think judges don't rep out and intervene (and a good majority of them do stay honest about it), but it is just a fact of life. It is probably one of the reasons huge upsets don't happen every often. (Yes I know there are some amazing examples of upsets in the past, that's why I said not very often). Sharing cites doesn't make for good debates. They make for predictable debates. That doesn't increase the educational value only the substantive value.

 

I don't think politicking is the main reason that we see civility on the college circuit. I think most coaches know enough about to debate, to keep biases from influencing decisions. Also, I gave cite sharing as one example of a norm on the college circuit that fosters a sense of community and improvement. Cite sharing might make for predictable debates, but that predictability is one of the key components of education. People can have better debates because they are better prepared. I also talked about how improvement is valued on the college circuit and that there is less ridicule and more constructive help. I think that's what needs to happen in Missouri, and on this forum.

If you really think what the college level circuit is doing then why are so many programs losing their debate squad? Oregon, Long Beach, Wyoming is probably getting close (even though they only have 2 seniors this year and the rest are youngsters). The last time I checked e-debate was about 4 months ago where they provided an update on yearly how many schools are cutting their programs....it's quite a few. Doesn't sound like success and collaboration to me. In a world where the smaller schools don't bring back any hardware because they don't debate like the top teams do, regardless of sharing and discussions, they get cut, excluded, ended.

 

 

 

I don't know how schools losing programs suggests anything about the debate community as a whole. Universities might have budgetary problems, or internal political issues. There could be issues of interests as well. Also, Wyoming seems to have a pretty solid entry at its tournaments, and talking to some of their debaters, I feel like they are planning on staying around. Even if this is not the case, I still don't think we can draw a correlation between this phenomenon and the level of collaboration on the college circuit.

 

 

Your solution is for Missouri debaters to start "working together" and have some big revolution in order for them to stop being demonized as bad debate on the national level or any other level for that matter. In what world of a conservative, stock issues, no cp judging pool would that happen? I have read some ballots that judges have filled out this year not knowing who the Janjaweed were and literally referring to them as "Some JuJu people in Africa killing other blacks". Do you seriously think a united front of debaters could in any way change this view? I could literally give you all the cites in the world to every aff case I have seen and this would never change the out come of those minds.

 

I agree with you in that Missouri debate isn't the most conducive to bettering itself. However, I feel that if debaters start working together, and there isn't a perpetual stream of debaters who hate each other and can do nothing more than discuss how bad the other is at debate, there can be a change in the attitudes of coaches and we could see more MO debaters going out on the national circuit or better judging pools in MO tournaments. Also, I don't think cite sharing is the global solution, that was just one example of a way we can improve relations in the MO debate community. I think its more important to look at the bigger picture where we're in a world in which we function as one community.

 

So here is my proposal to you folks. Talk things over with your coaches first and foremost about what to do. I know one solution is going to tournaments in KS because a majority of the time they recruit college judges and I know a lot of them are willing to go to tournaments. Also, I don't know of a single area in Missouri right now where there isn't a college to recruit college debaters from. Stop narrowing things down to "you have to be an NDT debater in order to be good at debate" and excluding a lot of the Parli Schools. Try getting a whole of Truman State, Drury, MO State, Wash U, Mckendree University, UMKC, Missouri Southern, William Jewell and others to come and judge tournaments. Even though I live in Topeka I'd be more than happy to come and judge some tournaments and most likely will in the future. Furthermore, I know it is expensive to host tournaments on the HS level and a majority of the time you break even but if you offer to pay some critics you will actually get a good judging pool. Champ divisions are dwindling in MO so just throw them all into Champ (STOP FUCKING WORRYING ABOUT DIRTY JUDGES IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF THEY HAVE SEEN A TEAM BEFORE) and actually get some good quality debate rounds that make you think. There is no reason why (just a hypoethetical) Evan and Nick should ever lose a debate round on the argument "We can't consult the AU because we don't speak the African Language"...which I have seen happen to another team this year in Missouri.

 

Sorry for the long rant, this is all just frustrating.

 

I think you have a great idea here to fix debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, dichotomies are inevitable....

 

Furthermore, you talk about the cohesiveness of the collegiate circuit and its called politicking...

 

I have no clue why this is relevant. College debate is split, ok, why does this mean Missouri is hopeless? The main result of a division in Missouri debate is behavior on cross-x.com and at tournaments. And the splits in college debate are linked to very broad differences in style and resources. In Missouri, almost every school, with some exceptions, has similar resources to do the activity within Missouri. Furthermore, the stylistic difference is minimal. When debaters like WillyG and myself use cheesy quotes and anecdotes, ignore arguments, frame things unfairly it's called "adaptation." When Carthage or Neosho do the same things it's called "slime." We're all trying to do the same thing. I'm not going to reduce away the differences - I think there are some important ones - but they are not significant enough to justify a fractured community or rude behavior (which I am just as guilty of as any of us).

 

Your solution is for Missouri debaters to start "working together" and have some big revolution in order for them to stop being demonized as bad debate on the national level or any other level for that matter...

 

So here is my proposal to you folks...

 

The question is not "Will working together make the community more like the national circuit?" Why is the national circuit the measure of a good community? Because they read cards fast, share cites, and go to camp? I think this is a very poor way of thinking about the issue. For a number of unavoidable reasons, Missouri will never mirror the kind of debate that happens at the national circuit. That's unfortunate, because that kind of debate is great. But there are a lot of things we can do to make Missouri debate meaningful. Having some degree of civility is a good place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there is something inherently bad about "bashing" online. I know that I hated debating Zain because he had no problem making new arguments in the last rebuttal, which IS bad for debate. Is it not possible that people should be held to some kind of standard on the way that they chose to debate. There is a big difference between stylistic choices and slimey debate, and it's ridiculous to assume that the community can't draw that distinction. It's not fun to have someone lie in debate rounds, and because there can be no other course of action, sometimes the community needs to condemn that shit. I also think that the community is more likely to call someone out if the team knows better. I don't think many people are hostile towards Seneca if they read new in the two [they may claim that they suck, which I would concede is probably not entirely healthy for the community, but I would argue that when smart people like Zain do that shit, the backlash is much more severe].

 

Does the community need to be more united? Probably, BUT if the health of the activity is relevant to the competitors, then there needs to be some community agreement over what is and what is not "cheating" and some recourse for those that chose to debate like assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no clue why this is relevant. College debate is split, ok, why does this mean Missouri is hopeless? The main result of a division in Missouri debate is behavior on cross-x.com and at tournaments. And the splits in college debate are linked to very broad differences in style and resources. In Missouri, almost every school, with some exceptions, has similar resources to do the activity within Missouri. Furthermore, the stylistic difference is minimal. When debaters like WillyG and myself use cheesy quotes and anecdotes, ignore arguments, frame things unfairly it's called "adaptation." When Carthage or Neosho do the same things it's called "slime." We're all trying to do the same thing. I'm not going to reduce away the differences - I think there are some important ones - but they are not significant enough to justify a fractured community or rude behavior (which I am just as guilty of as any of us).

 

It's relevant for a couple of reasons. The first, it proves that REGARDLESS of what we do there will always be a split. The college circuit is just the big kids version of the debate currently done in highschool. And I agree with what you are saying, absent a few schools everyone has a majority of the same resources, and lets face it...resources make the squad just as much as the debaters do. Sure the success of Northwestern is due to the debaters but Scott Deathrage also houses a class of 35 students each year who's sole purpose in life and the class is to research the topic day in and day out. We have to accept the fact that we are all assholes and we are all going to talk shit on each other whether it be to their face, on this forum, or behind their backs. I was guilty of being Zain's best friend to his face as he was mine when he was just prepping strats and shit with Chrisman to Melissa and I's case my senior year...It is inevitable. Hatred. Animosity. Shit talking. Accept it and enjoy it.

 

 

 

The question is not "Will working together make the community more like the national circuit?" Why is the national circuit the measure of a good community? Because they read cards fast, share cites, and go to camp? I think this is a very poor way of thinking about the issue. For a number of unavoidable reasons, Missouri will never mirror the kind of debate that happens at the national circuit. That's unfortunate, because that kind of debate is great. But there are a lot of things we can do to make Missouri debate meaningful. Having some degree of civility is a good place to start.

 

I don't ever mention how the national circuit necessarily is the stylistic measure of good or bad debate. In fact i think 90% of national circuit debate is absolute fucking shit. You have people trying to run Kritiks who can't name a piece of literary art that author has done. Having civility in the debate community doesn't make it better, the LEAST civilized circuit are the schools who debate nationally. There are thousands of horror stories that I have heard and witnessed because of said debate

 

 

P.S. Thanks for the neg rep to whoever said I suck at debate, you are proving the point quite well in fact. Yes I did suck in HS...I think the scoreboard proves otherwise today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is getting much larger than I expected. That's sweet. I think this is something worthy of discussion.

 

I'm not sure that there is something inherently bad about "bashing" online. I know that I hated debating Zain because he had no problem making new arguments in the last rebuttal, which IS bad for debate. Is it not possible that people should be held to some kind of standard on the way that they chose to debate. There is a big difference between stylistic choices and slimey debate, and it's ridiculous to assume that the community can't draw that distinction. It's not fun to have someone lie in debate rounds, and because there can be no other course of action, sometimes the community needs to condemn that shit. I also think that the community is more likely to call someone out if the team knows better. I don't think many people are hostile towards Seneca if they read new in the two [they may claim that they suck, which I would concede is probably not entirely healthy for the community, but I would argue that when smart people like Zain do that shit, the backlash is much more severe].

 

If the community is capable of drawing a proper distinction between acceptable and unnacceptable forms of debate, they certainly haven't done so yet. Lying is a pretty clear problem, but the line between lying and expressing the truth in a one-sided way (which is pretty much required for debate) is very blurry. I know you read Justification a little in high school, and that was a pretty contentious position. Another anecdote: in sems of Nixa, WillyG conceded our justification argument in the 2ac, and then ignored the majority of solvency arguments. Instead, he gave a pretty compelling sob story about dying africans in the 2ar. And.... he won. Was this slime or strategy?

 

I think, against your claim, that when "bad" debating happens by people who "know better" it is tolerated as "what you have to do to win." When the same type of debating happens by a Carthage or Neosho team, it is considered ignorant cheating. Again, I'm not trying to say that there isn't a right or wrong in this issue - I love the kind of debating done at camp as much or more than anyone in this state - but the way the distinction gets played out is a little warped.

 

Lastly, even if the line between good and bad were black and white, community condemnation has a pretty poor track record. It has been going on for quite some time, sometimes hilariously, but the same schools produce debaters that debate the same way. Having the ballin' kids who go to camp say that you suck doesn't make you want to mimic them, it makes you dig in harder and stay the same. If there is ever a chance for a more progressive turn in MO debate, it should probably start by making progressive debating an appealing option.

 

The first, it proves that REGARDLESS of what we do there will always be a split. The college circuit is just the big kids version of the debate currently done in highschool... Hatred. Animosity. Shit talking. Accept it and enjoy it.

 

As I argued above, the college debate circuit isn't a very good model for conflict within MO. There is minimal resource disparity and the stylistic differences are not all that significant. Furthermore, our community is a lot smaller. The dynamic is totally distinct.

 

The injunction to enjoy hatred is, I think, the worst option available. Debate can be pretty lame in this state, I don't deny it. The thing that has made debate meaningful is the community. I am certain it could be even better by making our community more inclusive and welcoming. Rationalizing hopelessness is hardly desireable.

 

I don't ever mention how the national circuit necessarily is the stylistic measure of good or bad debate. In fact i think 90% of national circuit debate is absolute fucking shit. You have people trying to run Kritiks who can't name a piece of literary art that author has done. Having civility in the debate community doesn't make it better, the LEAST civilized circuit are the schools who debate nationally. There are thousands of horror stories that I have heard and witnessed because of said debate

 

It seems you are agreeing with me, much more than disagreeing. In the post before the one I am quoting (starting with "Your solution is for Missouri debaters...") seems to say that "working together" is a bad idea because MO will never be like the national circuit. My whole point is that the national circuit is not, and shouldn't be, the horizon of our aspirations. Missouri is definitely unique, and coaches/judges/resources will prevent any sea change in the opportunities for debaters. I think the best we can hope for is a unified community that can make the weekends we spend worth their while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure that Christian and Kevin struck the judge because he was intoxicated, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

NO! I know, Christian Lehmburg certainly looks like it, but thats just the way he looks. He was fine.

 

HAIL MILITIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really liked reading polar opposite views of missouri debate/style/asshole-ness whatever.

there is definatly a line between styles of debate, and it doesnt mean that there is one team that is better, I dont personally think bringing everyone together like john lennon wanted us to is going to help things. in fact it wouldn't suprise me if people would be bigger douches than normal.

how can we define one team 'better' if the teams are totally different and have their own strengths?

i mean damn, i lost to a plumpy'nuts aff this year. and the only reason i can think of that would have helped me win, would have been not to have 3 old fart women (not being sexist sarah) as lay judges. but thats missouri debate, you adapt to whats going around or you lose the round.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would watch what accusations I make about a critic who will quite possibly be at several more local tournaments..."

 

Oh, why would Carthage care? When we don't like our judges we just strike them and throw violent fits until we get an old person we like. That is how we win all our rounds...

 

Didn't you know?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm merely saying that accusations and attitudes like these are an easy way to get repped out.

 

If you've built a reputation for doing something, it is nobody else's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems i never made a response to anything that was written about why people hate carthage.

 

nick- i went to camp. i won the camp. it was a piece of shit camp, MDI, that did almost nothing for me, and was a waste of money. the idea then is what? that people need to go to good camps together to learn about each other? and so what if we aren't part of the club? why is this a reason to hate someone?

 

i'm sorry that some teams think we aren't topical. we found out, and we've changed the aff... will this be enough? if kevin and i run a blatantly topical case do we become good enough for all the people who don't like us? or is there some other hoop we need to jump through?

 

i'm not proud of levi white. if it makes any difference in ANYONE'S opinion he screwed me out of state and nationals by deciding that getting high was more important than graduating from high school. he now works at mcdonald's. what does the community want from me? i can't change what he did, but i can try my best not to mimic him...

 

there is no perception from our side that speed is bad at all. if anyone needs proof of this, ask matt price about his 1ar 2nd round of monett... our speed isn't always the best (hillcrest was absolutely awful), but wtf? we suck? that's why people hate us? we don't bash speed, we don't think that flow rounds or judges are shit, in fact we keep to ourselves most of the time... it seems really unfair that we are perceived as something we are not.

 

furthermore, we don't limit ourselves to winning in one way, or not winning at all. our coach knows NOTHING about policy debate, which is why he's not teaching it next year. i'm sure it will make someone happy to know that carthage policy debate is dying, along with half the fucking country because of this shit public forum virus. but don't think that we have some country bumpkin on the bus telling us how to debate and win, we had to teach ourselves. does my excuse for sucking mean anything to anyone? i don't think it has to. people don't need a justification for why we are bad, or why you think we are bad... the point is that they think we are. i can't change that, except to try to get better. in the mean time, it seems like that makes the hate people have for us less a result of something that we're responsible for, and more of something these people have for us because they want to.

 

i know you said this in your previous post, and it makes sense.

 

you seem to be the only person on this forum that has given a legit reason why people don't like us. i appreciate that.

 

i am so tired of this stupid shit...

 

katie-

 

haley made the comment, not my partner or myself, and if you were referring to haley's reputation then i'm shocked as this is her first year of policy debate, and her comment was her first post.

 

so i'll assume you were referring to me. first, the reputation is what? that kevin and i strike judges? okay, so at ONE tournament, kevin thought that christian looked intoxicated...and asked that he not judge the round. alyssa had no problem with it. and this establishes a rep?

 

it sounds more like we are judged by the reputation that slimey ass-clown levi white left behind, as if we were never going to be anything different than that.

 

you're absolutely right...if i'm known for something, it isn't anyone else's fault. but there is a point where i stop having control over whatever you think. it would be nice if that was only your problem, but it turns out that a debate community that hates you can work against you, and it is harder to win rounds that way.

 

for the record, i didn't really like carrick, but i've never had a problem with you, or sarah. and after his post it's not like i'm going to send will pearson a christmas card... but i don't give nick or sam shit about it.

 

i can't be unhappy about the judge i have in the back of the room because if i am, then i'm attacking his character. at the same time, the judge will hate me because of some other reasoning i can't fix right then and there...

 

there is no way for us to ever succeed with this view (that apparently EVERYONE has of us). from your perspective we'll never be good enough, we'll always be judgmental of our panels and it doesn't matter who on the team represents these ideas: they are just automatically applied to whomever you would like.

 

there is no way we can change your mind, there is obviously no way to redeem ourselves from your sore judgment, and that really sucks for us.

 

so how about this: the people who hate us can hate us. it's not like we can change your mind anyway. and if you don't hate us, cool. we still have to debate both of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I like getting into snippy fights on cross-x, but please. You and I have had personal conversations about carthage-greenwood relationships that are done and fixed. Nobody from Greenwood says Carthage sucks (well, openly :)... jk), and you know it. We don't give two craps (maybe one.. who knows) about what judges you strike, or why, it's a personal decision. I merely made the comment because not only did Haley say that, but I know that there was mass objection on your part to strike Christian (this will get confusing, because it's your name too... geez!) at Hillcrest because you believed him to be intoxicated. Don't act like you had nothing to do with that strike. My comment was merely there to highlight the stupidity of making public accusations of something you have no proof of about a judge who could quite possibly judge you at Parkview or other Springfield/nearby tournaments.

Also, I don't think anyone lost respect for you because of speed, or where you went to camp (and I think Nick was criticizing that reason for the division, not advocating it), or how good you are at critical debate. We all have to adapt to lay judges, not just you, and I know that while lay debate is criticized often on this forum, it's obviously inevitable in this region. We've all learned that fun, good, flow rounds (which do not necessarily have to be fast or critical, by the way...) aren't going to happen very often in this region. My advice to you would be to calm it down a bit- if you're going to say things like "let the people that hate on us hate on us" then it shouldn't matter. The only thing you can do is work your ass off and make the other team hurt when you beat them. Doesn't that sound like a better way to get back at people then to be overly defensive on cross-x? This may have sounded utterly patronizing, but that's not my intent. My bad if it is taken that way.

 

Also my bad for putting five sets of parentheses in this comment. haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you seem to be the only person on this forum that has given a legit reason why people don't like us. i appreciate that.

 

i am so tired of this stupid shit...

 

I'm not sure you caught the thrust of my post. I didn't give a single "legit" reason to dislike you.

 

Rather, I listed the reasons people dislike you, which are based on false perceptions and contrived distinctions. If anything, I was talking about the importance of collapsing the divisions in the community.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...