Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
extempreacher

Hillcrest

Recommended Posts

]

 

I almost agree with you on this issue. I think it’s awesome that people like Christian and Alyssa are willing to give back to the community and help out. I don’t mean to patronize or understate anyone’s competence as a ‘critic’, but I really believe that reputation plays a major a role in judge deliberation. My comments on this issue will spark controversy, but if a team like Carthage is debating against Nixa, I’d put a large sum of money on Nixa with a panel like they had at Hillcrest (one composed of past high school debaters from Springfield that are familiar with the hierarchy) because even in a world where Carthage may have legitimately won, I still think Nixa would have come out on top because of how they are seen in our community. You all know this is true.

 

Let's remember, though, that he didn't strike Lehmberg as a matter of being repped out, but because he thought that Christian was intoxicated. I don't think Carthage will ever solve for the above rep issue by striking judges based on reasoning without proof, but rather by heeding our advice regarding the community (again, I hate sounding patronizing... sorry). All's I'm sayin'.

 

Other than that, Will, I agree with you entirely in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

The first part is sick. If you haven't lost on T (not that i know your record in this area) then why switch affs? Winning with one aff and only being compelled to change bc someone says it isn't topical and thinks you are cheating is lame and hurts debate. You could've changed your aff for numerous reasons (so im not sayin' you're lame) but let me just say from my perspective don't ever let your aff be a reason you are ostracized from the community. there are many cases just NOT TOPICAL that don't make any teams in the nation look bad. they often times look clever in the critic's mind and people are pissed with the way they debate T. I've said this before but T is an argument not a belief system and at the end of the round if the aff is winning (with any type of critic) that T blows goats and the neg feels abused they should've been smarter or at least possessed more wit if they truly felt they were the better debaters. No debate is a lost debate from either side. And will's point that a certain amount of leeway is given to those who are respected may remain true in some spheres but is never a reason a winning team should be denied argument choice (even for respect). The idea that someone else's concept of T, a mythical caselist if you will, would weigh in on your decisions just makes my heart hurt.

 

second part of this quote...hilarious. mainly bc of the carrick comment.

 

p.s. sorry to add to the drama of this thread. although this isn't meant to be dramatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myths of Topicality/Framework

a- Topicality is an a priori voting issue-Many of you were taught that Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins the aff isn’t topical, then it’s game over. That might be the way it used to be, but that’s not the way it is now. Topicality is no different than any other debate argument. There is a link and an impact, and even uniqueness questions. In a standard topicality shell, the negative interpretation and violation form the link. The standards and voting issues are impacts.

b-Debate is a game, and it has rules-uh, no. In fact, nowadays in debate you can run Ks of why rules themselves are bad. So even if debate does have ‘rules’, whether or not those rules should be enforced is debatable.

It seems to me that whoever this guy is said that T shouldn't be weighed because it's not real world. This is an impact turn to topicality, or at worst a reason why it should be rejected. It's not immoral, unfair, or cheating to say that T is not a voter, or that T is bad for debate.

You can win a T debate with a lay or conservative judge. It's been done. I'm not saying that its easy, and its lame, but realize it's a debate. If you have a judge in front of you who won't vote on T, theres a good chance you don't need T to win that round in the first place... you can go for solvency deficits via stock issues, justification, whatever. You just have to play these sorts of biases to your advantage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but I know that there was mass objection on your part to strike Christian... Don't act like you had nothing to do with that strike."

 

At hillcrest I had to be reminded that christian was even someone i had previously debated. until that point i couldn't pick him out of a lineup. kevin told me that there was a problem and i look right at him and said, "if you feel that way then you take care of it." if you need proof, ask him. or ask alyssa dudley, he was the one that approached her. i had no say in it. i don't know who told you what, but if you were under the impression that i have a bias against him, then it should not have been a result of something i have done. in fact i have never done anything that would even hint i thought that he was intoxicated. he looked fine to me, and if it hadn't been for kevin bringing it to my attention, i would have just started the round.

 

my post sounded like it was heavily directed at you and i apologize. i never meant to imply that greenwood had hostility towards us in any way. i was inconsistant with my use of the word "you". sorry.

 

as far as calming down: it does seem a bit contradictory for me to say that we have no control over what people think and then go on to try and convince them. i see that. however, i don't think it is impossible to see why i, or anyone from carthage, would feel offended and attacked by some people's perception of us. i feel like even if i can't change your mind that i should have a chance to defend myself instead of just rolling over.

 

nick- i understood your post. legit was the wrong term. i was trying to say that you openly described why someone/anyone would have animosity or hard feelings towards us. i appreciated, then, the time that you put into your explanation and your thoughts on the topic. although i agree with you wholeheartedly, does it make sense that on the other side of this argument i feel a little helpless? i mean, divisions in the community, as you said, are put up by those who dislike the other teams anyway. it just sucks that there is absolutely nothing i can do to change someone's mind. like katie said, i can only do my best to win rounds and beat those people, then make them hurt for it. still, i feel like there is little i can do to make debate easier for myself (my example about a community that hates you being a difficult community to debate in).

 

will- i understood nick's argument on the camp thing, i really did. i understand that it creates division. but in the original post his point was that people believe we win on bad arguments. it is unclear whether or not he meant that people think we win on bad arguments because we didn't go to camp, or that he thinks that we win on bad arguments because we didn't go to camp. i don't think he intended the latter.

 

but overall my predicament is that this group of people does feel a certain way, and it seems to be based on something over which i have little control.

 

"I think if you had approached this issue differently and made a bigger effort to answer the topicality concern ‘up front’ it wouldn’t have been a problem. But, if I remember correctly, the way you phrased topicality throughout the round was that it wasn’t an issue and actually a contrived rule. Your argument was that “real policymakers don’t care about topicality,” which is probably true, but that, in conjunction with the nature of your aff, was probably tantamount to cheating.

 

My argument is that this community will not respect you if this is how you want to debate. You seem to have a desire to win but also a desire to be respected. Thankfully though, you don’t have to sacrifice one to acquire both."

 

if you thought that was our position on T, then i am greatly saddened. i have the A/2 shell we read against you. we merely had a "real world" standard on our counter definition. never, ever, ever, would kevin and I say that topicality was not a voter, or was a bad argument, or was not a rule, or not a measurement that the aff needs to live up to. if you were confused, i doubt that it was your fault. that was our fault because we didn't make the argument clear. but sam ran the same argument against us in the quarters round and maybe we made the argument clearer there, because ryan understood the argument were making.

 

we also never said that policy makers don't care about topicality. our position was merely that your definition of assistance was not as real world as ours, as congress would view a change of policy as an increase in policy. this was our position, never that policy makers don't vote on T.

 

"Look, man, I never expressed any animosity toward you. The only thing I said is that you in particular shouldn’t be saying what you said earlier in this thread because I thought it might spark a dispute… oh wait, it did!

 

Your witty comments aimed in my direction are entertaining, but the real issue remains: do you want to be liked or not in this community? I’m not suggesting that my opinion of you matters all that much in this community, but what I am saying is that you should probably be trying to get support from each and every individual. If this is really that important to you, alienating me won’t be helpful."

 

and my response also still remains. first, that i wasn't complaining about the round at all. second, where else would a complaint about the tournament go if not in the thread itself. your position is that i brought this whole discussion down on myself? i fail to see how "hillcrest made me sad" would spark a huge controversy over the types of jugdes in my rounds, and how people hate carthage. i really don't.

 

do i want to be liked or not? i don't see that as the question really. maybe an example can help. i know who nick ramsey is in the debate world. but i have never had a conversation with him. i don't know anything about his personal life, his affirmative, what arguments he likes, anything. i know his name, his school and that many people think that he is good. in consideration of those things i don't have to like him. but i don't hate him. i have no negative feelings about him whatsoever. and if he made a post like the one i did, i would not say what you did (if the shoe fits that is). i don't have to be liked. this isn't a "carthage needs people to like them" situation. it would just be nice if people would no hate us. dislike us, hate me because of SOMETHING that i have control over, but don't just hate us because you can. that is what i would like, but i guess i'm fine with not getting what i want.

 

you say that i should be trying to get support from every individual. i keep saying this: i feel very constrained in what power i have over what people think of us. my whole point is that your perception of us (however warranted, or unwarranted) is something i have limited control over. so what am i left to do? is this an innaccurate picture i am painting?

 

i didn't mean to alienate you, only to say that your comment was a bit revealing of what you think of us...that's fine. i don't feel like i need your adoration. my point was that based on your opinion of me (or the way i interpreted your words) i wouldn't assume that everyone on your team felt the same way.

 

sarah- we have several versions, we're still keeping the old one. but (and i'm not asking this question to make a point, i really don't know) do you know how it feels to have teams work together to beat you? i'm not saying that anyone on this thread has done that, but i know from previous experience that it is difficult to win any rounds when your competition cooperates. if i can do something to change the perception of my team by competition then i feel that will help, not to mention that i care about carthage. i don't want people to think that we are ignorant. it seems like i'm in a difficult situation where if we do make changes based on perception it makes us look like lame bitches. but if we don't we become ignorant and hard headed debaters that think we need to win a certain way or not at all.

 

what is the correct solution?

 

fight club- i appreciate your support, though i do think that topicality is a fair argument. i also think that there are many arguments on either side of these positions. however, though the arguments you made were completely valid, i think kevin and i try to make better arguments against t. the ones you posted weren't bad, we just take a different approach and read arguments we think will be more successful. don't we all?

 

and to sum up on the last point, i think that exploiting biases to your advantage is a little iffy. it seems that under that interpretation the negative isn't being judged on how they run the T argument, but the judges preconceived ideas on T debate, over which the neg has no control. now in a situation where the judge distances his or herself from the T debate and simply looks at the team running a K on T and makes a decision on that, then the neg would be judged on how well they ran T.

 

 

whether you think i'm being overly defensive or not, i think that it would be unfair to say i don't deserve a chance to defend myself, or explain certain things. if any of my posts sound heated, angry or mean to anyone, they are not intended to be that way. i'm sitting calmly at a computer honestly thinking through everything... not losing sleep over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. What is your deal, man? if you can't find adequate AB tradeoff ground, that is my problem? little case literature? it's in congress now...wtf?

 

B. I agree that teams need to be topical...what part of my last post was confusing?

 

What my block consisted of is irrelevant? considering that it was the first time we introduced ANY response to T in that round, it seems like it would be pretty fucking important will. real world was my standard. STANDARD!!! i say that my definition is better because it is more real world! we believe our interpretation of the resolution is better! how is that lying?!?!? cheating?!?!?!? if you thought otherwise in the round i have already said that it was my fault for not making the argument clear... i'm sorry if i confused you. what happened to me talking about sam's round (quarters at nixa)?

 

i'd like to repeat from my other post: we think T is a voting issue. we never, in the history of our debate careers have said otherwise. nor, currently do we hold that belief... why you continue to argue this point is quite...weird.

 

furthermore, why are we arguing about this? i'm telling you...right now...i don't think that. can this be concluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is getting distracted. I think it is useless to spend time and energy on these tangents about whether Carthage should be liked, or whether their aff is topical. The important issue at hand is how we, as a community, are willing to treat our members. In other words, I think we need to think about the importance of civility in this context.

 

I have little to contribute to the specific arguments about Carthage. Do I think that their aff is nontopical? You bet I do. Do I think they should be called out on cross-x.com and bashed because of it? No, I don't.

 

I used to be a big fan of calling people out on cross-x.com for reading bad arguments. You can find the argument between Sarah and I about the Laogai aff two years ago, if you are really interested. Since then, I've noticed that being hateful to a team and bashing them on cross-x does absolutely nothing except strengthen the existing divides. Furthermore, giving a team a minimal level of respect can go a long way towards making the community more enjoyable and making progressive debating a better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. What is your deal, man? if you can't find adequate AB tradeoff ground, that is my problem? little case literature? it's in congress now...wtf?

 

B. I agree that teams need to be topical...what part of my last post was confusing?

 

What my block consisted of is irrelevant? considering that it was the first time we introduced ANY response to T in that round, it seems like it would be pretty fucking important will. real world was my standard. STANDARD!!! i say that my definition is better because it is more real world! we believe our interpretation of the resolution is better! how is that lying?!?!? cheating?!?!?!? if you thought otherwise in the round i have already said that it was my fault for not making the argument clear... i'm sorry if i confused you. what happened to me talking about sam's round (quarters at nixa)?

 

i'd like to repeat from my other post: we think T is a voting issue. we never, in the history of our debate careers have said otherwise. nor, currently do we hold that belief... why you continue to argue this point is quite...weird.

 

furthermore, why are we arguing about this? i'm telling you...right now...i don't think that. can this be concluded?

 

i'm not getting into this, just wanna point out the horrid t debate that Carthage had (from the sounds of it atleast)..

 

who cares if your interpretation is more REAL WORLD. Real world doesn't matter if there isn't any ground for the NEG. Will's argument, from what I gathered, is that your aff isn't a net increase in anything, so you can't defend any net increase, as a result the NEG gets absolutely no DA ground, aside from maybe a bit of specific stuff to the aid you're removing. Also, considering that the literature functions as a limiting component of an aff and neg strat on any given 1AC, the fact that there isn't much literature out there, merely bolsters the ground debate as there probably aren't any specific links either. This, I feel, is the most important standard in debate because it functions as the most direct internal link into impacts like core topic education. Frankly, if you can't research a case, key topic education is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been really involved in this discussion, but here's my take:

 

i could very easily explain to everyone, that the reason i struck christian, was because matt price walked up to me and said "dude, christian is stoned, and drunk... you're fucked." i could also spend my time trying to explain to will, the strategy christian and i utilized in the round we had. i don't think it would be difficult to argue about the implications of christian's original post. but, before doing any of those things, i think it would be better for me to determine how constructive those things would be.

 

christian johns taught me most of what i know about debate, and one of the first things he told me was that i was always right. because as soon as i started believing some one else made a good point, i had lost the round. i think that everyone in this community has a very similar mentality, and because of that no one is going to give up any ground in this argument. i can't see us producing anything positive from continuing this discussion.

 

i think this entire debate is just giving us reasons to dislike one another. even if we aren't trying to be hostile, i think that in a debate environment, where everyone is trying to prove a point, things are viewed as hostile. because of that, it's very easy to dislike each other.

 

that brings me to nick's posts. he keeps saying that the community needs to work towards removing these "divides", and i agree with him whole heartedly. arguing about things like why we should, or shouldn't dislike each other isnt' going to do us any good, it's only going to further whatever existing problems there are. so, why not just give it up? i'm sure that if a C-X round lasted until one team had convinced the other they were right, there would be no point in attending a tournament.

 

nick is right. this isn't the kind of community we should be encouraging. i want other schools to like carthage, and i don't feel that christian and i behave in a manner that gives schools reason to dislike us (at least until the point when we argue about why we are/aren't liked). if a school/ person decides to dislike us regardless of that, then i guess there really isn't anything else we can do.

 

i propose a fresh start. i know that a lot of the community doens't know me, but that's alright. if anything, it makes this easier: "hi, my name's kevin and i'm from carthage high school."

 

if i meet you at a tournament, and behave in a manner that gives your reason to dislike me, then i encourage you to act on the impulse and dislike me. however, know that christian and i are not going to purposely do anything at a tournament to make people mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matt price walked up to me and said "dude, christian is stoned, and drunk... you're fucked." i could also spend my time trying to explain to will, the strategy christian and i utilized in the round we had.

 

So the enemy is Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the enemy is Matt

 

no, that wasn't the point... true, i probably wouldn't have struck him otherwise, but i'm not placing blame with anyone other than myself. it was my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in debate right now and I am reading this thread because I am bored. So could someone please explain to me the hierarchy of debate in Missouri?

 

P.S. this post is not malicious or made to bitch anyone out I am just curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is getting distracted. I think it is useless to spend time and energy on these tangents about whether Carthage should be liked, or whether their aff is topical. The important issue at hand is how we, as a community, are willing to treat our members. In other words, I think we need to think about the importance of civility in this context.

 

I have little to contribute to the specific arguments about Carthage. Do I think that their aff is nontopical? You bet I do. Do I think they should be called out on cross-x.com and bashed because of it? No, I don't.

 

I used to be a big fan of calling people out on cross-x.com for reading bad arguments. You can find the argument between Sarah and I about the Laogai aff two years ago, if you are really interested. Since then, I've noticed that being hateful to a team and bashing them on cross-x does absolutely nothing except strengthen the existing divides. Furthermore, giving a team a minimal level of respect can go a long way towards making the community more enjoyable and making progressive debating a better option.

 

I think a brightline can be drawn on what is acceptable community condemnation and what is not. I'm not entirely sure that the nature of this thread is destructive, because it is based on activities that happened in a debate round, but I think that's probably up to the community to decide. As you mentioned, we used to read a terrible justification argument, and faced condemnation from the debate community as a result. I think this is actually a good example of how the community can serve to improve the quality of debating... we stopped reading that argument because we got tired of being made fun of because of it. We won often with it, but were ultimately convinced that it wasn't a strategic argument. The truth of the matter is this: it wasn't a strategic argument, and if every debate revolved around it, the educational aspect of debate would be lost. We had no incentive to try and improve the argument we made in debate rounds, becuase the only factor that mattered to us were wins and losses. It is in this truth, that I think your over-generilizations become problematic. Debate is a game above all things, and so the most important thing to MANY of the debaters is making the arguments neccessary to win the round. This means that the only check against bad debating is the community. I hated debating Zain and some of the Neosho teams back in the day, because they had no problem giving terribly slimey 2ars, and lying about arguments made in the debate round. Those are examples of people who never cared what the community had to say, but I would venture to say that there are many more examples of individuals going to camp and trying to improve their debating as a result of trying to gain the respect of the community. If one believes that there are good and bad ways to debate [and i will engage anyone on this, if you want] then it must be true that the supporting of good debate would be beneficial. The community often times gets overly negative and detrimental [granted] but it can serve a purpose... to provide the only possible check against assholes in debate rounds, and also to allow for discussion over the kind of debate that is most educational and productive. Missouri debate would be much worse off if people did whatever they had to win... there are good debaters being produced all the time because they hold themselves to a higher standard, and my argument is that the community CAN play an important role in establishing that ethic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not getting into this, just wanna point out the horrid t debate that Carthage had (from the sounds of it atleast)..

 

who cares if your interpretation is more REAL WORLD. Real world doesn't matter if there isn't any ground for the NEG. Will's argument, from what I gathered, is that your aff isn't a net increase in anything, so you can't defend any net increase, as a result the NEG gets absolutely no DA ground, aside from maybe a bit of specific stuff to the aid you're removing. Also, considering that the literature functions as a limiting component of an aff and neg strat on any given 1AC, the fact that there isn't much literature out there, merely bolsters the ground debate as there probably aren't any specific links either. This, I feel, is the most important standard in debate because it functions as the most direct internal link into impacts like core topic education. Frankly, if you can't research a case, key topic education is lost.

 

While that's probably true, that doesn't mean that making the argument means you're a bad debater. I mean, if it's true, then you might as well throw it out there as a standard, as the judge might be convinced by it. Personally, I have no idea what went on in the round, but I don't entirely see the problem with what Carthage did in terms of T. Even if they did make the argument that T is not a voter, so what? It's the negative's burden to prove the judge should vote on topicality in the round - that's why you read voters in a T shell. If the negative team can't convince the judge that untopical affirmatives destroy fairness and education, and that that is a voting issue, then they don't deserve to win on T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a brightline can be drawn on what is acceptable community condemnation and what is not. I'm not entirely sure that the nature of this thread is destructive, because it is based on activities that happened in a debate round, but I think that's probably up to the community to decide. As you mentioned, we used to read a terrible justification argument, and faced condemnation from the debate community as a result. I think this is actually a good example of how the community can serve to improve the quality of debating... we stopped reading that argument because we got tired of being made fun of because of it. We won often with it, but were ultimately convinced that it wasn't a strategic argument. The truth of the matter is this: it wasn't a strategic argument, and if every debate revolved around it, the educational aspect of debate would be lost. We had no incentive to try and improve the argument we made in debate rounds, becuase the only factor that mattered to us were wins and losses. It is in this truth, that I think your over-generilizations become problematic. Debate is a game above all things, and so the most important thing to MANY of the debaters is making the arguments neccessary to win the round. This means that the only check against bad debating is the community. I hated debating Zain and some of the Neosho teams back in the day, because they had no problem giving terribly slimey 2ars, and lying about arguments made in the debate round. Those are examples of people who never cared what the community had to say, but I would venture to say that there are many more examples of individuals going to camp and trying to improve their debating as a result of trying to gain the respect of the community. If one believes that there are good and bad ways to debate [and i will engage anyone on this, if you want] then it must be true that the supporting of good debate would be beneficial. The community often times gets overly negative and detrimental [granted] but it can serve a purpose... to provide the only possible check against assholes in debate rounds, and also to allow for discussion over the kind of debate that is most educational and productive. Missouri debate would be much worse off if people did whatever they had to win... there are good debaters being produced all the time because they hold themselves to a higher standard, and my argument is that the community CAN play an important role in establishing that ethic.

 

I think we agree on more than we disagree. I definitely think there are ways to debate that are better than others, and I think one can give countless examples of indefensible practices.

 

My real beef is with the way the condemnation has been played out. As I've argued before, the kids who go to camp get off free, but then the kids from rural MO get bashed on cross-x.com. There needs to be more equity in who we condemn before we even get to the question of how.

 

Furthermore, community condemnation can only be helpful if its targets care about the communty's opinion. If there is an entrenched divide, then those on the other side are going to care little about appeasing their opposing group. This is largely why I've been stressing civility, which isn't the same thing as unquestioning acceptance. I am not entirely sure how this works out in the debate context, but it is certainly possible to condemn certain practices/positions without making things personally alienating.

 

There is a very fine line between criticizing and bashing. I don't know the delineation between the two sides, but I don't think there is a "brightline" as you might suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm in debate right now and I am reading this thread because I am bored. So could someone please explain to me the hierarchy of debate in Missouri?

 

P.S. this post is not malicious or made to bitch anyone out I am just curious

 

 

you're at the top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read this whole thread because I have better things to do so if I'm just being redundant forgive me. I talked to Kevin before our quarters round and he agreed not to strike CTK so as far as that's concered I beleive Christian when he says they thought he was under the influence and corrected the problem when they realized that CTK always looks that fucked up.

Christian= Christian Johns

CTK= Christ the king

  • Downvote 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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...