Jump to content
nsanluis

UIL State 2008

Recommended Posts

District 26

Hays- DuPont/SanLuis

Hays- Miller/Williams

 

From District 26, Hays Miller/Williams and an Alternate Del Valle team will be attending. Nathan and I are ineligible due to the fascist Sunday rule.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hot shit

 

so who would actually be interested in a UIL casebook - I know it isn't the most disclosure-friendly league but any info would be helpful right?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so who would actually be interested in a UIL casebook - I know it isn't the most disclosure-friendly league but any info would be helpful right?

I've tried creating one in the past; it never works.

 

Nonetheless, best of luck to you!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From District 26, Hays Miller/Williams and an Alternate Del Valle team will be attending. Nathan and I are ineligible due to the fascist Sunday rule.

 

thats madness! you were a top 5 speaker last year!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah... gotta go prep for UIL STATE. Haha, lol.

 

UIL State is a state tournament, and many of the teams who are fairly competitive on the national circuit are attending. Granted, this tournament is... different - but "different" doesn't change the fact that in this type of forum too, teams work hard (and, consequently, they win lots of the time).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, that all of that hard prepping becomes worthless when the person sitting in the back of the room says "I hate disads, cps, T, and Ks. I want to hear 8 mins of case".

 

Why is that inherently bad? Why is prepping for case debate a bad thing?

 

(Additionally, it's wholly unfair to say the entire judging pool is like that at state. Don't let few examples spoil your perceptions.)

 

*Ducks to avoid the swarm that is sure to come.*

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that inherently bad? Why is prepping for case debate a bad thing?

 

(Additionally, it's wholly unfair to say the entire judging pool is like that at state. Don't let few examples spoil your perceptions.)

 

*Ducks to avoid the swarm that is sure to come.*

 

1. some cases don't have a lot of neg ground, like health workers

 

2. teams don't have case negs to affs that haven't been run before

 

3. since the aff can claim multiple advantages, the neg is pretty much limited to solvency turns

 

(I'm assuming the judge isn't cool with case-specific disads either)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rotten judging pool isn't a reason why you don't prep for UIL state. There's still a positive correlation between talent/hard work and success: just look at the teams who are in late elims, year after year. They're usually teams you expect to see do well at TFA state. I'm not saying there aren't UIL horror stories because I've been in many of them, but this tournament isn't determined entirely by luck. You won't automatically win this tournament just because you've cut the most files or have the most bids, but you'll likely still do pretty well.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rotten judging pool isn't a reason why you don't prep for UIL state. There's still a positive correlation between talent/hard work and success: just look at the teams who are in late elims, year after year. They're usually teams you expect to see do well at TFA state. I'm not saying there aren't UIL horror stories because I've been in many of them, but this tournament isn't determined entirely by luck. You won't automatically win this tournament just because you've cut the most files or have the most bids, but you'll likely still do pretty well.

 

Whatever, Yao Yao. How would YOU even know... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever, Yao Yao. How would YOU even know... ;)

I took a poll. Oh wait, it's too soon for poll jokes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. some cases don't have a lot of neg ground, like health workers

 

2. teams don't have case negs to affs that haven't been run before

 

3. since the aff can claim multiple advantages, the neg is pretty much limited to solvency turns

 

(I'm assuming the judge isn't cool with case-specific disads either)

 

That really isn't representative of most of the judges at UIL state. Schools supply a big number of the judges as well (albeit from the other conference, but keep that in mind). And I think you're pretty much not thinking outside the box enough if those are your three responses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as bad as the judging can be, most case judges still like DA's and they absolutely love case specific DA's. The plus side is that solvency turns also hold alot of weight with those kinds of judges.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like or want to make the effort to try and adapt to the UIL Debate, then just don't participate in the UIL State Tournament. It's a very well run tournament and has good judging. Of course there are going to be a few people who shouldn't be judging, but it's your job to adapt to that. Your job is to persuade the judge and give them reasons to prefer either the affirmative or the negative.

 

Like Shikhar said, there are several really good teams that consistently do very well at the UIL tournaments and UIL State who do well at TFA State as well. Another example besides Hightower would be Bay City. They debate and adapt, and do so very well.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Shikar (sp? sorry) says that defense is game, its that you don't necessarily need to win the plan is net bad, just enough defense is enough to lever the plan as a failing policy option, and can convince the judge that they should vote negative.

 

Anyways, I think it should actually help you more for the TFA circuit because:

 

1. At worst, you should be good at going for topicality and analsyis based (as compared to warranted evidence based) debates

 

2. Better at comparitive, realistic analysis

 

3. Better at connections, which is one of the most important things to do regardless of judging

 

Note:

Sorry if this is false, I've had a few UIL judges on the TFA circuit and have had to adapt accordingly, and this is what I got out of it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm big on making fun of UIL, but it really is possible to adapt. I don't remember exactly what the trick is but there apparently is one. There are occasionally teams that figure it out and consistently win UIL rounds. I did a frustrating amount of UIL in high school and went 15-0 in prelims and 12-1 in elims at UIL tournies my last semester of hs.

 

But yeah, it's lame that many of judges (the 3A and 5A teams have it the worst) are less than qualified, but there's not much that can be done about it for the time being.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is insane. Either defend that UIL judging sucks, and we should adapt, or don't. Please don't try to justify their paradigm.

 

 

As a side note, how do quote two different people in one post? I keep on double posting cuz I can't figure it out.

 

Firstly, I need not type this again -

Andrew go play on a busy highway or something, you're not making any sense.

 

However, you're not understanding what The greenhill tennis player is saying (or rather paraphrasing) [sorry I don't think I caught your name...]

 

With most Traditional / UIL Judges, YOU DO NOT NEED TO WIN CASE OFFENSE TO WIN THE ROUND because the stock issues are an AFFIRMATIVE burden, meaning the AFF has to prove that they're topical, significant, inherant, solvant, and has harms. If you prove that they can't do ONE of those things, you win. It's that simple. Meaning that you don't need to prove how the plan causes more aids, but just wouldn't be able to solve for it.

 

being able to make args like that is called Adaptation, which is good.

 

 

Anyways, I think it should actually help you more for the TFA circuit because:

 

1. At worst, you should be good at going for topicality and analsyis based (as compared to warranted evidence based) debates

 

2. Better at comparitive, realistic analysis

 

3. Better at connections, which is one of the most important things to do regardless of judging

 

 

As a side note, how do quote two different people in one post? I keep on double posting cuz I can't figure it out.

 

Click that button that shows a piece of paper in the BG, a " sign and a + - it's to the right of the normal quote button.

 

 

 

----------------------

 

I have homework Andrew, so if you honestly still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you AIM me instead of posting on cross-x. It's not that complicated.

 

Nostradamus09 @ AIM

 

-Shikhar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, I need not type this again -

 

 

However, you're not understanding what The greenhill tennis player is saying (or rather paraphrasing) [sorry I don't think I caught your name...]

 

-Shikhar

 

Arnav

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but you'll notice other schools who consistently make it to late elims at UIL who wouldn't necessarily to so at TFA state. Adaptation is infinitly more valuable than raw skill. Nevertheless, it's hard to prep for adaptation skills, and you can still prep for rounds where you get lucky enough for a flow judge.

I don't understand why you can't learn or practice adaptation. If you rely heavily on the kritik, maybe you should try running disads, counterplans, and especially case debates more often. If you can't make eye contact, slow down or sound eloquent, then do extemp, oratory or try giving your 1AC/1NC in front of your parents. If adaptation were truly impossible to learn, why do schools like Bay City and (a few years ago) Caney Creek do so well at UIL State? They are not born with a natural ability to prove there's no inherency or to wax poetic about their harms. That all comes from experience and hard work (oh god, I'm sounding like Hillary now).

 

I'm not sure where your hate of UIL judges stems from (we all hate UIL judges to certain extents), but have you been to the state tournament? Because the judging there isn't that terrible, especially in 4A and 5A. A lot of college debaters and high school coaches are in the judging pool. In 2 years of competing at state, I never came across a judge who did not evaluate disads. In fact, most of them wet their pants in excitement over a disad vs. case debate. And if they only evaluate case arguments, then your job is even easier: as Shikhar already pointed out, you don't need to win offense because the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

 

Ultimately, there's still a positive correlation between doing well at TFA tournaments and doing well at UIL state. The winning schools from 5A in the last 4 years (Westwood, A&M Consolidated, Plano Senior, and Galveston Ball) all had teams at least at the octofinal level of TFA state. The vast majority of deserving teams do reach the elims of UIL state. If adaptation were truly the ultimate asset, something that always trumps skill, then this correlation would make no sense. It's fine if you think the UIL style of debate is restrictive, archaic, and repressive. In fact, I think every other person who has posted in this thread has, at some point in the past, ranted about the immense stupidity of UIL debate. But to say that it's impossible to adapt to UIL is just silly and not empirically supported by the results. If you don't like adapting, then don't go, but you're degrading the achievements of others by implying that there's no debate skill involved in UIL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read with some amusement this post. As a fellow UIL State Champion (1A '96), I couldn't agree with Yao Yao more. The notion that one cannot adapt to a UIL style of debate is ludicrous.

 

My junior year in high school, my partner and I went 32-1 for the year, only losing the UIL State Final round on a 2-1. Those were the only two ballots we lost the entire year, in fact. Were my partner and I just phenomenally lucky to win five small town UIL invitational meets and then go 7-1 at state? Did my luck continue when I won UIL state my senior year?

 

The answer, as my extempers say, is a resounding no. There is a very clear and real way to adapt to those critics. They absolutely view debate differently than most of us do. Most don't care about the line-by-line. Most will make their decision by the 2NC. Most despise disrespect, casual dress, and quick delivery. Most vote for the team that looks like they're winning, regardless of what the flow or arguments might reflect.

 

These characteristics are all things that one can adapt to. Is it still possible to "get did" (as Sohin would say) by a judge in UIL even if you're adapting? Yes. The coach of the team that beat my partner and I in finals my junior year admits we were ripped off in that round. One round out of 33, however, is an incredibly better percentage of "ripped-off-ed-ness" than what I experienced in my two years as a collegiate debater and in my five years as a coach of big school, TFA debate.

 

Add all that to the fact that Yao Yao's argument about the judging pool in 4A & 5A couldn't be more true. There are great critics in the pool in the 4A & 5A contest. In fact, if one is using the TFA measuring stick, those critics are much better than the pool in the 1A, 2A, & 3A state tournament. Yet there are CX powerhouses in 1A, 2A, & 3A. My alma mater, Lindsay, consistently has teams that clear and has 3 state titles in the last 15 years. Blanco in Conference 2A wrecks UIL. They've had a team in Semis or better at least seven times in the last decade.

 

All debaters, on all circuits, have the ability to adapt. Truly great teams don't blame all of their losses on the judge; they figure out what to do differently and win. If more teams did that, the entire community would be better.

 

And finally, in the greatest twist of irony to this post, I was on the panel that voted for Plano, aka Yao Yao and his partner, to win the 5A State title three years ago. Proof that UIL panels suck? You be the judge. Er, you know what I mean.

 

Peace,

Murrell

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two different debates to be had here: whether people like Shikhar should do whatever they can to prepare for UIL state, and whether TFA-style debate is superior to UIL-style debate. You repeatedly mix the two together. While the first can be decided objectively, the second is ultimately a subjective debate.

 

Murrell, Ryan, Ali, and other have given you numerous examples of teams who did well both at TFA and UIL tournaments. This proves that there's a direct correlation between prep and UIL success. You say, "But many people who do well in UIL simply wouldn't be as succesfull at TFA state. Fact." A major reason is that most of the teams who reach the late elims of TFA state are ineligible for UIL, either because of the 2-Sunday rule or because they attend private schools. Fact. There is another debate to be had over whether the 2-Sunday rule is unfair, one that's been had year after year on this website and one that nobody here wants to bring up again. Anyway, it's irrelevant if there's not a perfect 1-to-1 correlation between preparation and UIL-style success because TFA doesn't offer that correlation, either. In fact, TFA isn't any better with this correlation.

 

Your posts and responses repeatedly discount the success of teams that you deem to be undeserving of that success. The quote above is just one example. But how do you determine who is deserving and who is not? Apparently, a TFA standard. This is like saying "that arena football team was alright, but they'd get crushed against an NFL team." While the same sport, they have completely different rules and norms, and you can't judge one league with standards taken from another.

 

You also said, "It's sickening to me that I find i can't debate to what I feel is my fullest potential more often than I can. You have a choice. Beat them on the flow, and have a good chance of losing, or try to sound prettier." False choice, buddy. There's no reason why you can't beat them on the flow and sound pretty. The fact that you think otherwise is how you degrade the accomplishment of others. Your argument is also pretty silly. It's like saying, "I'm best at running The Rev and I think it's the best argument in debate. I will continue to run The Rev even though no judge will vote for it. By the way, I hate the judging." (St. Stephen's PV, please don't send me hate mail for this)

 

As for the second debate (whether TFA-style debate is superior to UIL-style debate), that's entirely subjective. [Let me preface this by saying that this is the first and last time I will defend UIL (this website has no bigger UIL hater than me)]. You say, "The fact is that I believe that debaters in our community value success in some circuits over others. For example, the person who adapted and won TFA state would likely be considered a 'better debater' than the one who adapted and won UIL state. That's just how it is." Just like above, your frame of reference is "our community", aka the TFA community. Of course we're going to like our style of debate. If you think that UIL debaters are in the minority, you're very much mistaken: the TFA circuit is limited to the cities and 4-5A schools, while there are an outrageous number of UIL-style schools. Across the country, there are way more UIL-style teams than TFA or national circuit-style teams...you probably only read about the national circuit teams. Remember, competing at UIL state doesn't mean you're entitled to debate however you want; you are essentially crashing their party. There's also not really a point to making UIL state another TFA state tournament. Why have the same tournament twice?

 

I absolutely agree that TFA-style debate is comparatively more objective and, for me, more intellectually stimulating. For me, and a lot of people, this is a more important value than speaking well. But that doesn't mean speaking well isn't something to be valued. I don't care how sweet TFA-style debate is, because there are more than enough chances to debate that style throughout the year. You're not going to lose substantial amounts of education by not winning on The Rev in front of a UIL judge. There's a lot of irony here, too: TFA-style debate is great because it forces us to see the value of various opposing arguments and positions. I guess it doesn't always succeed in changing its participants' perspective.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're missing the forest for the trees. If a goal of debate is teach its practitioners how to communicate more effectively, and you'll find exactly zero people in the business of debate (i.e. full-time coaches, teachers, etc) that would argue otherwise, then debate should reflect some key fundamentals of communication theory.

 

The majority of communication scholars that write on the subject agree overwhelmingly that one of the most fundamental tenets of human communication, if not the most fundamental aspect, is audience adaption. For the same reason that you don't tell your grandmother her meatloaf is off the chain, you don't spread for a UIL critic. Though everyone should have learned this is Communication Applications, my experience is that in most cases the class is considered a joke where you don't learn anything, which is unfortunate and a whole other post.

 

In the end, the argument is simple. One of the major goals of debate is to teach debaters how to be more effective communicators. There are few skills that are more fundamental to being an effective communicator than adapting your message to your audience.

 

You don't like the UIL style. That's fine. It's a circular argument, however, to say that the TFA style is superior and then to argue that everyone considers the TFA State Champion to be better. Though you may, it's definitely not universal. A lot of the people that matter the most to the survival of individual programs in this activity, namely administrators that determine what our bottom line is, care infinitely more about UIL success.

 

In addition, a ton of those small school debaters wouldn't consider TFA debaters "better". I didn't compete on a TFA circuit in high school. I didn't care about TFA success. In fact, we beat a couple of TFA style teams that qualled for TFA state because we were superior debaters in front of the type of judges that TFA debaters tend to despise. As another example, I can remember a school in 3A, whose name escapes me, with 2 debaters that were brothers that won UIL state THREE years in a row. You can talk about TFA success all you want, but by any standard that is phenomenal. Three years in a row, with 1A & 2A judges, which most would consider "terrible". Astounding.

 

Please realize that you're fighting an uphill battle. You have a view of one type of debate that you consider superior and despise another type because it's burned you. I've experienced both types for years, was an intern at UIL in college, and have seen the impact of both types of programs on students. Both have wonderful advantages and terrible disadvantages. I believe it shortsighted to argue that one is universally superior to another.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an easy way to sum up what everyone's saying (as well as life in general) is to think of valuation as a relative absurdity. Every truth we hold is as relative as every falsity. While national circuit debate has set a new standard for what highschool debate can be, I don't think that UIL has done anything short of that. Each league represents two very different styles of debate, I think Yao Yao's example of a regional football team v. any NFL team highlights the absurdity of comparing one style of debate to another.

 

Andrew, I know that you may feel that Yaoyao and Murrell are full of shit because they have not experienced the horrors of the Houston circuit, but believe me there are places where judging is much worse, but that's besides the point. In order to succeed in any debate forum I think we must first deconstruct this notion of truth we have of what debate "should" be and understand that every debate round is unique. (unless your debating Bellaire! -haha cheap shot, jk). TOC, TFA, or UIL - judge adaptation is paramount.

 

As a fellow Houston debater, I understand having lay judges all the time is frustrating, I'm a junior and I finally got the chance to compete on the national circuit this year, and you know what? I broke at two of the three TOCs I attended (Memorial and Colleyville) While it would be unfair for me to accredit my success to say, my UIL abilities, I would definitely say my ability to adapt to judges played an integral role. and while I agree that lay judging makes it difficult to "actualize our debate potential" in an educational manner, I also know that I had lay judges for 2 years and managed to do alright this year. If you want big heated debate rounds over intricate philosophical and political theories, then I would tell you that UIL isn't the best place to look - but that in no way means that UIL is 'useless,' simply that it's not what you're looking for in debate. Being from houston doesn't have to be a curse, it can also be a blessing man. Get good at winning rounds with lay judges and spend your extra time cutting shit / prepping for bigger tournaments that uniquely matter to you. Being a K debater doesn't mean resenting all other types of debate - on the contrary I think if anything it encourages us to be more accepting of the relative beauty of all types of debate - sometimes it also means understanding that there are positive and negative forums for your peronal philosophical beliefs. This inevitable requires you to be able to pick and choose your (philosophical) battles.

 

The moral of the story is, then, that while you may not see UIL as holding any uniquely educational importance, it's important to respect it if nothing else for sake of the activity itself. Debate is a tough sport - it's like no other game you've ever played before. There is no set basket you can shoot a 3 into to score points, nor is there an endzone you can charge relentlessly towards. While the objective of debate stays the same (to win) the means by which we achieve that end radically changes from round to round, but no matter where or how you play -pleasing the critic remains the name of the game.

 

It's your turn man, roll the dice and affirm the possibility of what debate can be, but first you yourself must first open your eyes to see infinite possibilities.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...