Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hi-dig-air

MSHSAA State 2008

Recommended Posts

Just throwing this out there...not trying to cause any more discontent than is already current on this thread. There are many teams that should be represented in later out rounds as was stated above, but tournaments like this truly are a crap shoot. In our rounds we had 1 school judge and 1 paid judge. Only one of our paid judges was a former debater (the round against max and jace) but even then I'm not sure how familiar she is with modern debates i.e. she didn't seem too pleased whenever I asked about k's because I wanted to run bioptx. The other paid judges were maybe students at the law school? i'm not sure, but I did manage to get a young woman who rolled her eyes when i said hundreds of thousands of people were dying from genocide in darfur...

 

The problem with the school judges is as follows; Coaches are forced to judge events in which they have NO qualifiers. This means that the schools like liberty, truman, and blue springs who have VERY qualified coaches will NOT be the ones in the back of the room. This theory of judging assignments is to avoid conflicts of coaches bias but lets get real - as policy debaters we should have individuals who UNDERSTAND what we're saying and can help us, especially as we prepare for nationals. Having a coach from a school that HATES policy, or doesn't even do debate does nothing to help the Missouri Policy debate program what so ever. Fortunately we had the pleasure of having Wedgeworth as a judge because parkview didn't qualify any teams but its coaches like HER (with 2 nat'l qualifying policy teams) that should be judging us. Reading her ballot will improve our skills more than a ballot that says "the 2AR yelled and wouldn't let the other team answer in c-x you lose". Our coaches are all grown individuals who know how to put their bias aside, its unfair to punish the competitors by not allowing those coaches to judge us.

 

-and to the small town argument, you must prove yourself to create a legacy like the bigger towns have created. In KC there is a smaller school named Savannah. Most people don't hear about them, but David Kozminski has made a name for their school. He has over 2000 points and has qualified to nationals in multiple events, competing in almost every debate and drama event. Success will get you recognized, but it must be consistent and garner some legitimacy. Seeing the upsets and lack of representation by certain talented debaters it is understandable that there is some warranted merit to the comments that have been made previously.

 

congratulations to all teams but KSATZ YOU BETTER WIN THIS

 

ROXANNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I find it interesting to read a post in the interest of criticizing the lack of progressive debate and receiving better feedback when you kicked one of the most progressive coaches in the state, who I know would have been willing to give you feedback, out of your room first round. This not only harms you, but harms your relationships with schools and coaches within the community and the state that would have been readily available to help you if you are going to nationals (I have no idea if you are or not, but remember slightly that you may have qualified).

 

Progressive debate also suffers when individuals sign off of AIM when asked for intel (while all the time ignoring facebook messages) instead of merely saying, "I don't want to disclose." It closes down communication within the community and harms you when you might need intel or files in outs.

 

This may seem petty, but it just strikes me as strange.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it interesting to read a post in the interest of criticizing the lack of progressive debate and receiving better feedback when you kicked one of the most progressive coaches in the state, who I know would have been willing to give you feedback, out of your room first round. This not only harms you, but harms your relationships with schools and coaches within the community and the state that would have been readily available to help you if you are going to nationals (I have no idea if you are or not, but remember slightly that you may have qualified).

 

Progressive debate also suffers when individuals sign off of AIM when asked for intel (while all the time ignoring facebook messages) instead of merely saying, "I don't want to disclose." It closes down communication within the community and harms you when you might need intel or files in outs.

 

This may seem petty, but it just strikes me as strange.

 

QFA. This attests to the rampant hypocrisy in the Missouri debate community.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it interesting to read a post in the interest of criticizing the lack of progressive debate and receiving better feedback when you kicked one of the most progressive coaches in the state, who I know would have been willing to give you feedback, out of your room first round. This not only harms you, but harms your relationships with schools and coaches within the community and the state that would have been readily available to help you if you are going to nationals (I have no idea if you are or not, but remember slightly that you may have qualified).

 

Progressive debate also suffers when individuals sign off of AIM when asked for intel (while all the time ignoring facebook messages) instead of merely saying, "I don't want to disclose." It closes down communication within the community and harms you when you might need intel or files in outs.

 

This may seem petty, but it just strikes me as strange.

 

While i don't want to start any arguments on this thread I will say however that our coach doesn't allow us to have people from non-competing schools inside our room during competition. She frowns upon this "scouting" and while I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it, she would have. Also we were debating Smith-Cotton with two lay judges and no development on positions so the critique post round as per our oratorical performances probably would've been unsubstantial. I don't understand why this would hurt our relationships with other schools, I think that takes it a little too far to say that I will be looked down upon by a community of debaters due to appeasing my coaches round watching policies. This should've come as no problem to you seeing as we didn't even break so there was no need for you to have a flow of our 1AC provided by your coach. I know my coach wasn't watching other rounds and flowing their cases...but thats just me.

 

As per facebook, you knew exactly what we were running and it showed in your message to me. I didn't feel you needed any additional information. Everyone in the state knows we've run the same aff all year long.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like you Lauren, so I don't really want to get involved. But if you thought she already knew, then what is the harm in confirming? The you-knew-anyway argument is pretty lame.

 

We never made a stink at tournaments when you didn't disclose to us (even when you weren't breaking new and we actually didn't know what your aff was), but it didn't exactly endear you to the debate community. Katie is right - you can't pick and choose only the elements of progressive debate that suit your personal interests. If we want to make debate better for the whole state, that involves changing the entire community. Disclosure is a good first step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these qualities of judge striking and non disclosure seem to be negative because they create division. i know several individuals who do not care for neosho's style simply because they do not disclose. however, i know that in some cases, a team may be forced to make decisions to appease a coach.

 

for example, my coach has told my partner and i not to allow a certain judge onto a panel (multiple times). this led to all kinds of problems not too long ago, not just when the critic gets angry and storms out of the room, but also when the community looks down on you for it.

 

while some might think that the appropriate and forthright decision would be to go ahead with it anyway, when a coach dangles "no more tournaments" in your face, the decision is not in your hands anymore. i don't mean to say that neosho or other teams that do this only make these decisions because their coach makes them. i have had several rounds against neosho where we asked them if they ran a case, they said no, ran another and then after the round confessed that they did have the original aff and chose not to run it because we already knew about it. this leads to all kinds of funniness when all you have to do is list off all the affirmatives they have, or just list the ones you know you don't want to debate, and in the end hurts them strategically anyway because they aren't having the very best arguments run against their case.

 

back to the issue - the movement to improve debate requires many people to take on different responsibilities. the most important and constructive arguments and discussions need to be about what we, the actual debaters, can do to better our standing nationally, and to have a well run state tournament.

 

the qualities listed above apparently contribute to division which does not generate quality arguments or clash. obviously all of the "camp kids" can't go to the "neosho-kids" and make them do anything, but is there anything that can be done? is there any action that debaters in missouri can execute to bring around this goal of change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This year there were only 21 teams at state for clarification.

And as for the judging pool...MAKE IT BIGGER.

There is a reason that coaches have discussed and argued that we should move the state tournament to an area such as KC or Springfield, both these areas have a surplus of good college debaters that would be more than willing to judge a few state rounds - where they're almost guaranteed some decent rounds - while getting paid. MU doesn't have a debate program any more so almost all of our "paid judges" were law students, or former debaters that debated one maybe two years in high school. The recruitment for paid judges consisted of a small chain of emails to a few students - not much publication of the event to attract former debaters. Although i agree that good debaters should be those who can adapt to a flow or a lay it makes rounds a lot more muddled and difficult to adapt to when you have a Coach from a school like Parkview who knows fully what they're doing, and a law student who has NO clue what you're doing. I just read ballots today and it seemed as if the judges weren't even in the same room. You could win a lay judge who says you speak pretty while losing a flow judge due to a half assed DA debate. Or you could win a flow judge with a nuclear war impact scenerio clearly won on a DA while losing the law student who writes "you shouldn't be aggressive."

Missouri needs to join the rest of the nation in producing good debaters and good competition by allowing for that with experienced critics who can help formulate those skilled debates.

 

Q: And why can't you convince a lay judge on a war (and not every disad has a nuclear war internal link/impact - so this is just strategy) scenario?

 

A: Because you don't know how to do proper impact calculus. (Ben knows what i'm talking about ;))

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
these qualities of judge striking and non disclosure seem to be negative because they create division. i know several individuals who do not care for neosho's style simply because they do not disclose. however, i know that in some cases, a team may be forced to make decisions to appease a coach.

 

First, I'm not sure how one "creates" division in a competitive activity that has teams, but. When people talk about "Neosho," they aren't talking about the debaters. Or, at least, I'm not. It's a school philosophy that certainly starts at the top. I have a hard time blaming a kid whose coach actively discourages fairness and openness. The debaters are a function of the coaching staff and, well, that coach is a doozy.

 

for example, my coach has told my partner and i not to allow a certain judge onto a panel (multiple times). this led to all kinds of problems not too long ago, not just when the critic gets angry and storms out of the room, but also when the community looks down on you for it.

 

Have you or your partner slept with that judge? Has there been a documented pattern of harrassment involving that person? Are they related to you or your partner? Were they ever on the same squad as you? If the answer to all those questions is no, there is ZERO grounds for constraining a judge.

 

while some might think that the appropriate and forthright decision would be to go ahead with it anyway, when a coach dangles "no more tournaments" in your face, the decision is not in your hands anymore. i don't mean to say that neosho or other teams that do this only make these decisions because their coach makes them. i have had several rounds against neosho where we asked them if they ran a case, they said no, ran another and then after the round confessed that they did have the original aff and chose not to run it because we already knew about it. this leads to all kinds of funniness when all you have to do is list off all the affirmatives they have, or just list the ones you know you don't want to debate, and in the end hurts them strategically anyway because they aren't having the very best arguments run against their case.

 

Lying about disclosure is bullshit cheating and, to me, about as bad as clipping cards. Now what you describe is not as severe, but still ridiculous. If a coach is threatening to remove students from tournaments for confirming that they are in the possession of an ALREADY BROKEN aff, that coach should be publically shamed.

 

back to the issue - the movement to improve debate requires many people to take on different responsibilities. the most important and constructive arguments and discussions need to be about what we, the actual debaters, can do to better our standing nationally, and to have a well run state tournament.

 

Disclose your affirmative. Don't lie in the 2AR. Cite things correctly. Learn what uniqueness is. Read a goddamn impact. Don't go for everything in the 2NR. The list goes on.

 

the qualities listed above apparently contribute to division which does not generate quality arguments or clash. obviously all of the "camp kids" can't go to the "neosho-kids" and make them do anything, but is there anything that can be done? is there any action that debaters in missouri can execute to bring around this goal of change?

 

They can make a choice to win cheap ballots or to stand up and actually engage the debate world as it is. It absolutely cracks my shit up that the people who, in rounds, scream that my politics disad is bad because it destroys education and is unfair and so on are the same people who blatantly lie in speeches, obfuscate the discussion and sharing of research and engage in nonsensical, jingoist rhetoric to blind lay judges to an actual discussion of policy implications.

 

In other words, stop sucking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q: And why can't you convince a lay judge on a war (and not every disad has a nuclear war internal link/impact - so this is just strategy) scenario?

 

A: Because you don't know how to do proper impact calculus. (Ben knows what i'm talking about ;))

NOTE: No one take this personal, this is just my rant ;)

While I tried to refrain from getting involved, I figured I'd throw my two cents in.

 

Over the last two years, I have come to the conclusion that it is a lot easier to win neg rounds when you don't read Mead, or some other nuclear war impact, or massive war impact with lays. In fact one the first things I was taught under the tutelage of Adam, Will, Wedge, Ryan and various other coaches, is that most lays will turn off the ole noggin when you say nuclear war.

 

Logic: So if I really give Trojans to Africa, we will somehow launch into a full scale war with China? or Africa will somehow become unstable enough to pull in the world's major superpowers?

 

Impacts are all a part of the game that is "flow" debate, and arguments that make sense under this logic, might not make sense under the logic of a lay judge.

 

For example

After NFL where my father was a judge, he came to me and expressed concern about Somalia, joking around he managed to say in a sarcastic tone, "HOLY HELL, IF WE GIVE AID TO AFRICA IT WILL SOMEHOW RESULT IN A FULL SCALE THERMONUCLEAR WAR?!?!?!?!".

 

However, get Clay Webb in the back of the room, and he will roll with it, and go off of the evidence, and grant it to them.

 

The fact of the matter is that winning a disad with a terminal impact is near impossible with judges who don't understand how debate works, and think about it in a 'logical' sense.

 

Zain, while I greatly respect you, I disagree, even giving an inexplicably large of Impact Calculus, may not be enough to win you those impacts in a debate round.

 

<3 Ben :D

 

P.S.

I find it ironic you mentioned me, I give the worst impact calc ever...

 

P.S.S.

It wasn't any part of my intention to upset or offend anyone, so please don't take it that way. I don't wont to stir up any animosity.

 

P.S.S.S.

Lauren's impact calc is BA

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, get Clay Webb in the back of the room, and he will roll with it, and go off of the evidence, and grant it to them.

 

Clay only votes on the K. True story. Run give back the land and he'll vote for you, no matter how the round breaks down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While i don't want to start any arguments on this thread I will say however that our coach doesn't allow us to have people from non-competing schools inside our room during competition. She frowns upon this "scouting" and while I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it, she would have. Also we were debating Smith-Cotton with two lay judges and no development on positions so the critique post round as per our oratorical performances probably would've been unsubstantial. I don't understand why this would hurt our relationships with other schools, I think that takes it a little too far to say that I will be looked down upon by a community of debaters due to appeasing my coaches round watching policies. This should've come as no problem to you seeing as we didn't even break so there was no need for you to have a flow of our 1AC provided by your coach. I know my coach wasn't watching other rounds and flowing their cases...but thats just me.

 

As per facebook, you knew exactly what we were running and it showed in your message to me. I didn't feel you needed any additional information. Everyone in the state knows we've run the same aff all year long.

 

First, let it be known that despite the disclaimers of "not wanting to get involved" or "don't want to start an argument" that my post was not intended as hostile, but merely a post to point out discrepancy.

 

A few things,

If it was your coach's policy, why didn't you say that instead of blame it on MSHSAA rules? That's what you said to Jon when you kicked him out of the room- this is what had been passed on to me, as well as what I heard through the partition in the wall. But, no matter. Further, if you didn't need his comments on your oratorical skill, why complain about poor responses from lay judges on your ballots?

 

Further... the bottom part of this post that says, "I know my coach wasn't watching other rounds and flowing their cases... but that's just me." I'm not really sure what this means, but if you mean to characterize Jon as a snoop who does our dirty work, I would hope that you realize that several other schools were sending spectators into rounds- why? Because it's strategic at a tournament where people don't readily disclose. If that's not what you meant, then good.

 

The sad thing about framing this as a fight or an argument is that I agree with a lot of what you said. I disagreed with many of the decisions that were given at state concerning a few split ballot decisions in prelims. State's always been kind of a coin flip, it's not unexpected. However, on cross-x, among all the bickering about different kinds of judges, the voice of reason always appears at some point: debate is a competitive activity that relies on adaptation. While the state tournament (as well as district tournaments) would be wildly improved upon if there were more judges available who were familiar with the activity, the sad truth is that mom and pop judges will always exist.

 

Concerning disclosure, I'm not sure why you can defend that you thought I already knew "enough" when I asked you specific questions about your aff(s). The reason disclosure is good? Reciprocity. I specifically told you we'd disclose back. But this is of no matter any longer. Nick put it best- you can't pick and choose which parts of progressive debate you would like to see flourish.

 

P.S. lol ruben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd disagree with the last bit of that, actually. I think you can and maybe even SHOULD choose which bits of "progressive" debate you want to flourish, or at least which you want to flourish first. Five minute rebuttals, a judge philosophy book and clearing all winning records is probably better to start with than 8 minutes of prep and full MPJ. Easier to swallow and all that. Lets the future changes come more easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread's getting more indirectly volatile than the democratic primary...

 

How did other state circuits get passed this point?

 

They didn't have MSHSAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread's getting more indirectly volatile than the democratic primary...

 

How did other state circuits get passed this point?

 

I'll let Shuman get on here with some more details, but if you think Missouri's problems are unique to our wonderful state, you're in for a surprise.

 

I know national circuit might look down on Missouri, but other state circuits don't really have an ethical leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, even Illinois, which features arguably the most "progressive" state debate community in the US (apologies to Georgia, Texas, California and whoever else), the politics at the state tournament are unbelievably pervasive and destructive. We just happen to also have fast debates and 8 minutes of prep.

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...