MSHSAA State 2008

[blueorange6871 3]

1. parkview has always had some good fucking policy debaters

2. greenwood will always have one of the best policy teams no matter what year it is.

3. i wouldnt make it to sems, so i wouldnt be questioning anything

 

im just wondering how a team who ran a plumpy'nut aff was able to break this far.

i beg your pardon but you can shut the hell up

 

1. Neosho has always had good policy debaters. Look at past records of former teams from Neosho. Do it.

2. What is so horrible about Plumpy'Nut? Your affirmative is Godly, I presume? I didn't realize that some high school student from Nixa is the final arbiter of whether an affirmative case is good or not.

3. If you admit you can't make it to sems, then what gives you the right to question a team that does?

4. "Shut the hell up"? Oh, so you get pissed if somebody doesn't agree with you?

 

Debate is a game--plain and simple. People employ whatever they must in order to win at games, correct? What is wrong with placing and overriding value on winning? Is that not the point of debate? You're supposed to win, not try some valiant, noble strategy that makes it 110% fair to both sides. People who use the slimy excuse as a reason to bash teams are missing out on the real point of debate--to win. I'm supposed to believe your moral compass is so high that you could not live with yourself if you did something supposedly "slimy"? To that point I don't really even believe that anything slimy exists in debate.

 

http://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/ChampionshipEvents.aspx

 

State results since 2001.

 

Four Neosho teams in outrounds in eight years. Not really the most dominant of all programs. Best showing were 2003 and 2005 semifinals round.

 

I was not just talking about state. Neosho policy teams have always had a good showing at invitationals for as long as there has been debate at Neosho. A particular policy team from Neosho a few years back did quite well at Nationals--something like 42nd or something. Have others done better? Sure. But don't be so quick to say there isn't a good showing.

[debaterness88 13]

Debate is a game--plain and simple. People employ whatever they must in order to win at games, correct? What is wrong with placing and overriding value on winning? Is that not the point of debate? You're supposed to win, not try some valiant, noble strategy that makes it 110% fair to both sides. People who use the slimy excuse as a reason to bash teams are missing out on the real point of debate--to win. I'm supposed to believe your moral compass is so high that you could not live with yourself if you did something supposedly "slimy"? To that point I don't really even believe that anything slimy exists in debate.

 

Posts like this are what give debate a bad rep. Yea, sure, winning is important in debate, but I think the most important objective is to get the maximum education out of this activity. When teams impede on that, with slimy 2ARs or bad arguments, sure, they are exercising their right to do so, but they won't garner respect from the community. Additionally, to answer some of your other posts. Neosho has had good debaters, and sure, they've had good showings, but I don't think that's necessarily indicative of their ability to debate, rather its a testament to the types of judges we have in this state and at NFLs for that matter. I will be the first to say that people like Ryan Childress were actually good debaters, but the culture at Neosho hasn't largely been that way and that's what people here are saying.

 

I'm sorry, but when a team can't answer a K/CP, that is suggestive of a severe lack of debating ability.

 

As far as your arguments about winning at invitationals, etc, you're still missing the point, that doesn't mean jack squat, if the way they do it is illegitimate.

 

What is so horrible about Plumpy'Nut? Your affirmative is Godly, I presume? I didn't realize that some high school student from Nixa is the final arbiter of whether an affirmative case is good or not.

 

I agree that "some high school student from Nixa" isn't the adjudicator on what is a good aff and what isn't, but from the sounds of it, this aff just sounds stupid and most of us on here are qualified to talk about stupid affs. Honestly, there really isn't such a thing as a "good" aff. There are strategic affs and unstrategic affs - that's it. This shit just sounds lame.

 

 

Just like clockwork. Anytime a team outside of the Springfield area does well it instantly has to be at fault of the judges. Why is it that every single time Parkivew won state that the qualifications of the judges were never called into question? How about when Greenwood won state? Were the judges ill qualified back then? I'd be willing to take a bet if you had gotten to semi-finals that the judges would have been quite up to par, right? Ridiculous.

 

1) No body said anything about the quality of judges in the other rounds. Maybe the judges weren't qualified, may they were, who cares. The issue at hand is that the WAY the teams debated didn't change - they didn't exploit the fact that the judges couldn't keep a flow. Additionally, the year greenwood won state, the round was VERY good, and I don't think you have any clout as to question the quality of those two teams. Clay Webb - First Rounder for the NDT....I don't think you can question any of the Greenwood state championships. Adam Testerman is rocking the parli circuit. Hassan was in state finals two years in a row. Not to mention both parkview teams two years ago were in outs of NFLs...narrowly losing to some good teams. Mark Dapp, Brett Marler, the list goes on, i'm sorry, you need to stop talking.

 

2) Last year, in state finals, the panels were actually qualified throughout outs and the rounds were high quality.

 

PS.

 

Why don't you tell us who you are?

[HAYguevara 20]

1. Neosho has always had good policy debaters. Look at past records of former teams from Neosho. Do it.

2. What is so horrible about Plumpy'Nut? Your affirmative is Godly, I presume? I didn't realize that some high school student from Nixa is the final arbiter of whether an affirmative case is good or not.

3. If you admit you can't make it to sems, then what gives you the right to question a team that does?

4. "Shut the hell up"? Oh, so you get pissed if somebody doesn't agree with you?

 

 

youre flying off the handle on this thing.

this thread exploded when i said whatever i said, and you take it like its this big insult.

i have never been in a good lay/flow round with anyone from neosho.

i only insinuated in my first comment that im guessing no college judges or anyone who have seen a policy round is judging.

how many threads on the missour page have been about adapting to lay or flow styles? seriously.

all these schools who do debate are strictly k/spread/speed/kinda-fast/ debaters

and then there are schools who are strictly fancy speaking/my coach wrote my aff/ im suave... kinda debaters (thats not an insult, its seriously just how debate HAS been going in missouri for the past years)

if neosho kids are looking for respect, why are they looking for respect from any asshole, like myself, from springfield or wherever?

 

if you ask sam rowland, apparently my aff was shitty also

and i never said i was the final vote on if an aff is shitty

we all know theres a good/bad/great way to write a case structurally.

im saying, structurally, plumpy'nut was the dumbest thing ive ever seen in a debate round.

 

assw for this whole argument, im with will pearson for the most part.

 

but what makes you so awsome, for joining cross-x yesterday just so you could finally bitch and complain about how no one treats smaller schools with respect?

 

whatever floats your boat man.

[squirrelweirdo12 78]

I heard judges were bad at this tournament.

 

Apparently some old Neosho kid made a real sketch decision for Liberty B in quarters.

[debaterness88 13]

youre flying off the handle on this thing.

this thread exploded when i said whatever i said, and you take it like its this big insult.

i have never been in a good lay/flow round with anyone from neosho.

i only insinuated in my first comment that im guessing no college judges or anyone who have seen a policy round is judging.

how many threads on the missour page have been about adapting to lay or flow styles? seriously.

all these schools who do debate are strictly k/spread/speed/kinda-fast/ debaters

and then there are schools who are strictly fancy speaking/my coach wrote my aff/ im suave... kinda debaters (thats not an insult, its seriously just how debate HAS been going in missouri for the past years)

if neosho kids are looking for respect, why are they looking for respect from any asshole, like myself, from springfield or wherever?

 

if you ask sam rowland, apparently my aff was shitty also

and i never said i was the final vote on if an aff is shitty

we all know theres a good/bad/great way to write a case structurally.

im saying, structurally, plumpy'nut was the dumbest thing ive ever seen in a debate round.

 

assw for this whole argument, im with will pearson for the most part.

 

but what makes you so awsome, for joining cross-x yesterday just so you could finally bitch and complain about how no one treats smaller schools with respect?

 

whatever floats your boat man.

 

Dude, debate has not been like that in MO. The teams who "spread", can also pick up the lay. Good teams are not unidimensional - they can adapt. You're missing the point of this whole conversation.

 

I heard judges were bad at this tournament.

 

Apparently some old Neosho kid made a real sketch decision for Liberty B in quarters.

 

Thats funny. But honestly, I'd say thats a biased opinion...however not entirely unbelievable.

[Testerboy 15]

God Zain, I'm glad you've seen the light, because you were the fucking most slimy 2ar in the state my Senior year. I loathed debating you in front of shitty judges.

 

Neosho has had good teams, but everyone is right, there top priority is to win the round, not to win the respect of the community. I don't know why you're even attempting to argue against that... Neosho has never particularly cared about what the rest of the community thought about them, so defending them like this just seems... out of place.

 

State judging is very weird, because there are some of the best judges in the state on some panels, and the next round can be people who kinda hate debate that isn't oratory. People should investigate the random fucking people who end up on the finals panels most years... it's a total crapshoot.

 

Go Kickapoo! Springfield pride!

 

SWMO FTW.

[Eapen 128]

Lauren,

You're right on point. Additionally, I think the idea that outrounds should be judged by 'clean' judges is a bad idea. It forces a scheduling conflict where often most of the qualified critics end up judging teams in prelims and then are forced to sit out of outrounds. I remember many many state outrounds (where, presumably, teams should be able to debate with every tool they have) being judged by people with little if any debate experience. So outrounds that should be showcases of what great debate can be end up being bland, and decisions are often controversial because they're poorly reasoned.

 

I am disappointed by the anti-intellectual arguments that the blueorange guy is making. I think we should be pushing debaters to their utmost, make them reason through and deal with complicated, finicky arguments. It takes little skill to explain something like changing a tire; it takes a great deal of skill to explain Foucault.

 

We should be encouraging young minds to grapple with and deal with these ideas. Because these ideas matter even if they're wrong! Because explaining why certain ideologies are wrong and advocating against them is vital to human survival!

[KatieFred 43]

..So, who won? If Kickapoo wins, it means a few things...

 

1)SWMO gettin their job done.

 

2) Beating Greenwood in quarters has become a good luck charm.

 

3) The term "life-affirming state" rang true with many.

[J3ffr0 306]

First, nothing is illegit about reading the PlumpyNut aff. That shit is baller.

 

Second, I have never debated or seen anyone from Neosho debate who was not piss awful.

 

Third, a team that was in semis of NFL nationals last year did not qualify to state.

 

It's Missouri, folks. Who gives a shit about state?

[HAYguevara 20]

And Neosho wins in Finals against K-poo

 

congrats, regardless of the situation.

 

kevin, you're awsome

bonnie, im in awe of you haha

 

kevin and bonnie are both awsome speakers

so ill give credit to neoshos team. seriously.

[anonymoose 86]

Congrats to everyone.

[debaterness88 13]

God Zain, I'm glad you've seen the light, because you were the fucking most slimy 2ar in the state my Senior year. I loathed debating you in front of shitty judges.

 

Neosho has had good teams, but everyone is right, there top priority is to win the round, not to win the respect of the community. I don't know why you're even attempting to argue against that... Neosho has never particularly cared about what the rest of the community thought about them, so defending them like this just seems... out of place.

 

State judging is very weird, because there are some of the best judges in the state on some panels, and the next round can be people who kinda hate debate that isn't oratory. People should investigate the random fucking people who end up on the finals panels most years... it's a total crapshoot.

 

Go Kickapoo! Springfield pride!

 

SWMO FTW.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what to say anymore to you. Have a nice life...I guess, and good luck with Parli.

[debaterness88 13]

Lauren,

You're right on point. Additionally, I think the idea that outrounds should be judged by 'clean' judges is a bad idea. It forces a scheduling conflict where often most of the qualified critics end up judging teams in prelims and then are forced to sit out of outrounds. I remember many many state outrounds (where, presumably, teams should be able to debate with every tool they have) being judged by people with little if any debate experience. So outrounds that should be showcases of what great debate can be end up being bland, and decisions are often controversial because they're poorly reasoned.

 

I am disappointed by the anti-intellectual arguments that the blueorange guy is making. I think we should be pushing debaters to their utmost, make them reason through and deal with complicated, finicky arguments. It takes little skill to explain something like changing a tire; it takes a great deal of skill to explain Foucault.

 

We should be encouraging young minds to grapple with and deal with these ideas. Because these ideas matter even if they're wrong! Because explaining why certain ideologies are wrong and advocating against them is vital to human survival!

 

I agree. However, I believe that the intellect can be stimulated by good DA debates as well, so even good Missouri debaters are capable of garnering the education that more liberal circuits promote.

[TDooley 8]

You guys suck at debate so quit you're fucking bitching and whining.

 

Is your name Keegan Tomik? Fucking tools.

 

NO!

 

So quit bitching about how bad you are and the state is and go to a camp where he is lecturing this year.

[KJSatz 25]

I don't want to foment the chaos, but the affirmative was landmines with water and agriculture advantages an funding being taken from "United States Aid to Egypt." The negative was T-Public Health, DA-Aid to Egypt key to relations, Mid-East peace, Stable oil prices, Decreasing terrorism, and making tanks, some solvency barriers and an Agriculture Bad turn involving the environment and fertilizer runoff. 2AC answered everything, spiked out of DA by saying they don't cut military aid. 2NC took DA and Case, 1NR took T. 1AR spent 3:15 on T (just comparing interps) and 0:45 on DA (continuing spikeout)...and 0:00 on case. 2NR spends 0:20 extending T in case someone was into it, 2:20 on DA (continuing "Aid to Egypt" being cut is military aid, extending conceded impact analysis), 0:45 on case discussing drops, the rest concluding and asking them not to consider 2AR arguments. 2AR specific time allocation was not paid attention to, but about 2:30 was on T discussing the purpose of T and how since there's been clash that means they're topical, 0:30 about how new in the 2AR is fine since Kevin dropped T in the 2NC and Bonnie dropped everything else in the 1NR, 1:00 on how terrible landmines are but not specific answers to negative attacks.

 

Overall I would say I am disappointed in how the judging turned out.

 

One of the Aff votes: "Bonnie, don't say 'Gosten 01' 'Gutman 08' - I want full cite. Evidence probably strong, but I don't know who these people are. This leaves me w/ your analyticals, which are really good, but you need to credibility of your evidence as well. Bonnie + Kevin, you are both awesome speakers, and in many ways this was a nearly perfect neg attack, but by not properly citing sources, you severely hurt credibility. Just T in 1NR - I like the guts it takes to do this, but again, you attack their source (good idea) but you didn't----OK, now you gave me author qualifications on the T. RFD: I am probably the squirrel vote, bc in with proper citing, the Egypt D/A would have been devastating and the attacks on Ad's would have pulled through. I partially bought the T (infinite expansion but no CP ground) by neg, but it was well defended by aff. So I guess I am making my statement for credibility, which I know the neg understands, but has gotten out of the habit of doing." T. Martin, Camdenton coach, final round, MSHSAA state debate tournament, 4/19/08, 4:35 pm, Memorial Union Room S110, yellow paper.

 

The other one just seemed like a lay based on the ballot. She didn't buy T, which is cool, and she said "Egpyt Disad was a close call - really close debate," which I mean whatever, but no discussion of conceding the case in the 1AR, which I thought the 2NR made pretty evident.

 

The Neg vote wasn't big on T because it was undercovered in the 2NR, and he didn't think the DA was developed enough. He voted on the concession of case turns out of the 1AR and lack of 2AR argumentation.

 

Anyone who watched the round who wants to corroborate or dispute this representation of the round...feel free; this is America.

[DK19 11]

People employ whatever they must in order to win at games, correct? What is wrong with placing and overriding value on winning? Is that not the point of debate? You're supposed to win, not try some valiant, noble strategy that makes it 110% fair to both sides. People who use the slimy excuse as a reason to bash teams are missing out on the real point of debate--to win. I'm supposed to believe your moral compass is so high that you could not live with yourself if you did something supposedly "slimy"?

 

So, if I were to be, say, playing a game of chess. My opponent happens to look away for a second, and I cheat and move my queen in a position where I can checkmate him on my next move, this would be good by your standards? I am merely "employing whatever I must to win at the game" as you say we should do. That IS more important than being valiant, noble, or manitaining my moral compass? You do go so far to say that there is nothing "wrong with placing and overriding value on winning" through this "slimy" move, corrrect?

 

Bullshit. All I prooved was that I suck at chess. The same applies to people who bullshit in their last speech. I won't go so far as to say that ALL Neosho debaters do that, but even as an LDer, I see Neosho doing that very thing more than any other school. Therefore, those certain Neosho debaters suck at debate (keep in mind that I am not at all saying anything about all Neosho debaters-merely the ones who act as such).

 

Now suck it up. You're being stubborn. You are CLEARLY wrong, the comment was not even that insulting.

 

I also notice that you STILL seem to neglect sharing your identity.

[Bruce Willis 732]

2008 Speech & Debate Championship Results - FINAL

Close Window

 

2008 MSHSAA Speech, Debate & Drama Championships

 

April 18-19, University of Missouri Columbia

 

 

 

Cross-Examination Debate

 

1. Matthew Cumming / Mary Kellogg, Neosho

2. Kevin Satzinger / Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo

3. Christian Johns / Kevin Boydston, Carthage

Stephen Gott / Marcie Babcock, Liberty

5. Sam Rowland / Laura Ransom, Central (Springfield)

Andrew Ellis / Nathan Smith, Central (St. Joseph)

Michal Hyre / Ka-Chuan Suen, Clayton

Katie Frederick / Sarah Godwin, Greenwood

 

Results by Round: Quarterfinals - Stephen Gott / Marcie Babcock, Liberty def. Sam Rowland / Laura Ransom, Central (Springfield), 3-0; Matthew Cumming / Mary Kellogg, Neosho def. Andrew Ellis / Nathan Smith, Central (St. Joseph), 3-0; Christian Johns / Kevin Boydston, Carthage def. Michal Hyre / Ka-Chuan Suen, Clayton, 2-1; Kevin Satzinger / Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo def. Katie Frederick / Sarah Godwin, Greenwood, 3-0. Semifinals - Matthew Cumming / Mary Kellogg, Neosho def. Stephen Gott / Marcie Babcock, Liberty, 2-1; Kevin Satzinger / Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo def. Christian Johns / Kevin Boydston, Carthage, 2-1. Finals - Matthew Cumming / Mary Kellogg, Neosho def. Kevin Satzinger / Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo, 2-1.

 

 

 

Dramatic Interpretation

1. Jimmy Krawcyzk, Blue Springs

2. Kenna Hall, Savannah

3. Michael Tyrone Brown II, Blue Springs South

4. Joe Hunter, Neosho

5. Sophia Brown, Raymore-Peculiar

6. Ariel Kizer, Truman

7. Jake Miller, Joplin

8. Blake Braden, Park Hill

 

 

 

Duet Acting

 

1. Andrew Grojean / Precious Johnson, Blue Springs

2. Brittany Perry / John Thornton, Parkview

3. Camille Yameen / Annie Simpson, Liberty

4. Logan Rader / Deidre Irwin, Marshfield

5. Michelle Castillo / Kati Littleton, William Chrisman

6. Colton Buckhanan / Britney Epperson, Doniphan

7. Cody Vaughn / Chloe Miller, Webb City

8. Megan Aleshire / Brittany George, Monett

 

 

 

Extemporaneous Speaking

 

1. Bryan Yarde, Francis Howell North

2. Omar Qureshi, Monett

3. David Kozminski, Savannah

4. Justin Letts, Neosho

5. Kevin Satzinger, Kickapoo

6. Allyson Strickland, Glendale

7. Adam Blood, Joplin

8. Rachel Walker, Raytown

 

 

Humorous Interpretation

 

1. Ty Harshman, Nixa

2. Zach Beattie, Savannah

3. Eric Staves, Liberty

4. Tucker May, Central (Springfield)

5. Andrew Grojean, Blue Springs

6. Kirstin Racicot, Monett

7. Amy Hoehn, Francis Howell

8. Chris Rosado, Moberly

 

 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

 

1. Omar Qureshi, Monett

2. Laila Khan, Neosho

3. Justin Letts, Neosho

David Kozminski, Savannah

5. Bryan Yarde, Francis Howell North

Sam Tabory, Liberty

Adam Ford, Oakville

Alex Ndikum, Parkview

 

Results by Round: Quarterfinals - Justin Letts, Neosho def. Alex Ndikum, Parkview, 3-0; Laila Khan, Neosho def. Adam Ford, Oakville, 2-1; Omar Qureshi, Monett def. Bryan Yarde, Francis Howell North, 3-0; David Kozminski, Savannah def. Sam Tabory, Liberty, 2-1. Semifinals - Laila Khan, Neosho def. Justin Letts, Neosho, 2-1; Omar Qureshi, Monett def. David Kozminski, Savannah, 2-1. Finals - Omar Qureshi, Monett def. Laila Khan, Neosho, 2-1.

 

 

 

One-Act Play

 

1. Raymore-Peculiar

2. Cole Camp

3. Lee's Summit

4. Kickapoo

 

STAM Awards: Best Actor - Jacob Golliher, Raymore-Peculiar; Best Actress - Sophia Brown, Raymore-Peculiar; Best Supporting Actor - Gary Cochran, Raymore-Peculiar; Best Supporting Actress - Rebekah Youmans, Raymore-Peculiar.

 

 

 

Original Oratory

 

1. Katie Smith, Pembroke Hill

2. Jennifer Tian, Warrensburg

3. Zach Beattie, Savannah

4. Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo

5. Whitney Smith, West Plains

6. Lindsey Zhang, Central (Springfield)

7. Jarret Chaney, Nixa

8. Mary Beth Martin, Monett

 

 

 

Poetry Reading

 

1. Aryiel Everett, Park Hill South

2. Diana Harper, Central (Cape Girardeau)

3. Teonna Wesley, Raytown South

4. Kylee Daugherty, Parkview

5. Rachel Shaw, Liberty

6. Andy Kozminski, Savannah

7. Megan Aleshire, Monett

8. Claire Wong, Clayton

 

 

 

Prose Reading

 

1. Dalton Gentry, Cameron

2. Kelsey Abele, Barstow

3. Francis Ahrens, West Plains

4. Claire Wong, Clayton

5. Kylee Daugherty, Parkview

6. Caity Chism, Marshfield

7. Kenna Hall, Savannah

8. Lessley Dennington, Central (Cape Girardeau)

 

 

Public Forum Debate

 

1. Max Mikitish / Susan Taylor, Liberty

2. Dan Schultz / Lindsey Zhang, Central (Springfield)

3. Kylee Daugherty / Jamie Wirsig, Parkview

Marilyn Robb / Brittany Sanders, Pembroke Hill

5. Allyson Strickland / Thomas Fritts, Glendale

Adam Blood / Tom Mourning, Joplin

Ethan Poe / Alexis Elliott, Liberty

Derek Jess / Nick McAfee, Savannah

 

Results by Round: Quarterfinals - Max Mikitish / Susan Taylor, Liberty def. Allyson Strickland / Thomas Fritts, Glendale, 3-0; Marilyn Robb / Brittany Sanders, Pembroke Hill def. Ethan Poe / Alexis Elliott, Liberty, 2-1; Dan Schultz / Lindsey Zhang, Central (Springfield) def. Derek Jess / Nick McAfee, Savannah, 3-0; Kylee Daugherty / Jamie Wirsig, Parkview def. Adam Blood / Tom Mourning, Joplin, 3-0. Semifinals - Max Mikitish / Susan Taylor, Liberty def. Marilyn Robb / Brittany Sanders, Pembroke Hill, 2-1; Dan Schultz / Lindsey Zhang, Central (Springfield) def. Kylee Daugherty / Jamie Wirsig, Parkview, 2-1. Finals - Max Mikitish / Susan Taylor, Liberty def. Dan Schultz / Lindsey Zhang, Central (Springfield), 3-0.

 

 

 

Radio Speaking

 

1. Foster Honeck, Pembroke Hill

2. Amanda Sasek, Moberly

3. Evan Dorshorst, Central (Springfield)

4. Bonnie Lyons, Kickapoo

5. David Law, Jackson

6. Dustin Burke, Pattonville

7. Stephanie Rizzolo, Warrensburg

8. Nathaniel Veale, Cole Camp

 

 

 

Readers Theatre

 

1. Raymore-Peculiar

2. Liberty

3. Lexington

4. Nixa

 

 

 

Storytelling

 

1. Jake Helton, Blue Springs

2. Andy Kozminski, Savannah

3. Andrew Harth, Belton

4. J.T. Dick, Nixa

5. Hannah Campbell, Rock Bridge

6. Brittany Perry, Parkview

7. Sebastian Smith, Platte County

8. Auddia Granberry, Raytown South

 

Champions by school: 3 Blue Springs, 2 Pembroke Hill, 2 Raymore-Peculiar, Cameron, Francis Howell North, Liberty, Monett, Neosho, Nixa, Park Hill South.

 

 

Another year, another One Act and Readers Theatre Championship by Ray-Pec.

[Neocon4life 23]

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Neosho is an excellent debate school but that is irrelevant. The point is that a team won state that I was undefeated against (or at least half of the team.) You can't blame poeple for being a little shocked when a team that reads wanky untopical affs makes it to finals. This would be like a townson team that rarley cleared winning CEDA (not that this would ever happen). People are shocked and are forced to question the amount of crack that was distributed at the judging table. And don't blame this on school size either. My favorite to win comes from a school with about 20 kids in a class.

 

When a team loses on bad cites there is nothing they could have done to make a critic like that happy he or she is clearly looking for a reason to justify their ballot. This is why Missouri Debate blows. Further Debate isn't about adaptation it is about winning arguments and using logic to do so.

Kevin and Bono you are my heros. Great Showing!

[Neocon4life 23]

Also Omar Qureshi is a total bad ass. So congrats to him on pwning noobs in LD!

[KJSatz 25]

I don't have a quarrel with Neosho stemming from this round. The 2AR was not like the "China will kill me when they strike us because we don't have a Space Force--I'm a firstborn!" I experienced once last year.

 

But I am still in denial, I think, about the decision. How can a 1AR without a word answering on-case offense, only arguing defense on T and a no-link on the DA, possibly win? Even if the coach who didn't like "Andersen 97" etc. could have then pretended that we didn't read evidence from authors, and it was just an analytical turn...they still conceded it completely. And they didn't make an argument that we should be voted down for our method of citation.

 

I am most disturbed by the part in the RFD of that ballot, "I am probably the squirrel vote.... I guess I am making my statement for credibility...."

 

Before State, I didn't prepare for extemp nearly as much as I should have, and I gave an "eh" speech in finals...this was supposed to light a fire under me to get me to prep really hard for nationals so I can do well in extemp. But what if I don't cite the evidence properly, or do something else the judge doesn't like that I couldn't predict and is a common, fair practice in the event? It is disheartening.

[Captain_Planet 29]

Is there a serious anti-St. Louis bias at state?

 

Only 8 people / teams from St. Louis were in finals out of 104 positions. That's ridiculous, and certainly under-representative of the amount of St. Louis kids who qualified. I find it hard to believe that St. Louis is that much worse than the rest of the state.

[Testerboy 15]

Is there a serious anti-St. Louis bias at state?

 

Only 8 people / teams from St. Louis were in finals out of 104 positions. That's ridiculous, and certainly under-representative of the amount of St. Louis kids who qualified. I find it hard to believe that St. Louis is that much worse than the rest of the state.

 

I think you all are cursed since your "Go St. Louis" huddles at invitationals.

 

Congratulations Kickapoo. like I said... the panels are loaded with landmines, especially in a year with no MoState critics in attendance. The finals panel should include the best judges possible, but there always seems to be one or two people that no one has ever heard of before. It's a joke.

[DK19 11]

Kevin. Bonnie. You guys are amazing.

[debaterness88 13]

This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Neosho is an excellent debate school but that is irrelevant. The point is that a team won state that I was undefeated against (or at least half of the team.) You can't blame poeple for being a little shocked when a team that reads wanky untopical affs makes it to finals. This would be like a townson team that rarley cleared winning CEDA (not that this would ever happen). People are shocked and are forced to question the amount of crack that was distributed at the judging table. And don't blame this on school size either. My favorite to win comes from a school with about 20 kids in a class.

 

When a team loses on bad cites there is nothing they could have done to make a critic like that happy he or she is clearly looking for a reason to justify their ballot. This is why Missouri Debate blows. Further Debate isn't about adaptation it is about winning arguments and using logic to do so.

Kevin and Bono you are my heros. Great Showing!

 

Ok, I think Towson is a little better than the teams in Missouri you're talking about...just an observation. And, the judging at CEDA is diametrically opposite from Missouri judging.

 

Congrats to Kevin and Bonnie for having a sweet run!

[tim 35]

My thoughts about State:

 

1. I never had a good round at state.

2. I never had a good panel at state.

3. I made it to finals last year, and I believe that success has no correlation to how good of a debater I was.

 

Few reasons for this:

 

1. Every affirmative won in outrounds last year.

2. Two very good teams (Central and Greenwood) lost in quarters last year (that Hassan and I then did not have to hit).

3. In outrounds last year I had 9 judges. There is only one of those 9 that I would ever want to judge me (eapen).

 

I assume what happened at State this year is probably around what I experienced during my debate career. Thats not to say that good teams can't win State (Adam and Kelsey), or do well (George and Michael), I'd just have a hard time assuming that because someone won state that they are the best team in Missouri.