Jump to content
RoyersMWD

Nebraska 08-09

Recommended Posts

Word from Coach Christensen is that they lost in Octos and they have the distinct feeling they got "jobed". KCKCC better be ready for these boys, they're on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nat olson squirreled for us and after a few questions from post round extraordinaire Dylan Sutton one of the judges was on the brink of tears because he realised that he was wrong. Nat had to console him before he left the round.... The other judge basically concluded that "I guess you and I have different conceptions of what debate should be." Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya... i guess most of all it makes me disappointed in our community. For a group of people so allegedly open, progressive, intellectual, and accepting its mindblowing for me to hear someone straight out say to me "well this is how i see debate" when the entire round is hashing out what the activity should or should not look like. Its just dismaying.... We saw Nat again today and he was like im sorry you guys got screwed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is disappointing; you did make noise. Hopefully, the next tournament people know your stuff and are more open to your arguments. Take those crap losses and use them as fuel to kick even more ass. Congrats on getting to Octas you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nat olson squirreled for us and after a few questions from post round extraordinaire Dylan Sutton one of the judges was on the brink of tears because he realised that he was wrong. Nat had to console him before he left the round.... The other judge basically concluded that "I guess you and I have different conceptions of what debate should be." Thoughts?

 

I didn't watch this round (as I was debating) and I don't know what happened, but I don't think it's fair to say that about Jon Chen especially when he doesn't have a chance to defend his decision, nor after grilling him post-round for a decision he made. Sure, shit happens. Don't pin it all on the judges though, Sheb North is a pretty good team.

 

Congrats on making octos nonetheless, and sorry bout what happened.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

listen - millard south (us) is not under the delusion that there aren't going to be judges who either misunderstand our arguments or don't believe in our vision for debate. we know and accept the inevitability that we will lose rounds because people like "traditional" policy debate. that's not to say we're not going to simply lose rounds because we debated worse than the other team either. both will happen. at the same time, try to understand ian's (our) frustration and why he would turn to the community and ask what they think about it. we take these arguments, or at least their thesis, seriously and as such it only makes sense that we'd ask the very community we argue about for thought. thats what ian's getting at with his second post. now, i don't put much stock in cx.com as any sort of representational forum for the debate community; i'm simply trying to get you to understand some of the motivations for ian's post here. this isn't just another "ian's irrationally angry" situation. quite frankly, he's gotten much better on that level.

 

that said, ian doesn't intend any disrespect for either of the judges. ian's description (that you quote) is devoid of any sort of value statement on the things he cites from after the round. he implies a perception about the intensity of the conversation i had with judges after the round, but that's all. to be more specific, i simply rephrased things from their rfds in the form of (rather nonconfrontational) questions, sometimes over the implications for the round to what they had decided, in order to help myself understand why we lost the round so that we can avoid doing so again in the future. ian's right on one level, there was a certain degree of palpable tension and chen did look upset. perhaps you disagree with ian's interpretation of the situation, but it (the conversation) wasn't intended aggressively. i know and respect megan and didn't/wouldn't say that her views on debate or her ability to evaluate a round are illigit. i assume the same of mr. chen as well. put simply, you weren't there. it's not accurate to say that anyone didn't get a chance to defend themselves or got "grilled".

Edited by TLF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't watch this round (as I was debating) and I don't know what happened, but I don't think it's fair to say that about Jon Chen especially when he doesn't have a chance to defend his decision, nor after grilling him post-round for a decision he made. Sure, shit happens. Don't pin it all on the judges though, Sheb North is a pretty good team.

 

Congrats on making octos nonetheless, and sorry bout what happened.

 

Of course not. As Dylan said, my intent was not to criticize his ability to judge or impugn his credibility, but rather to state that he seemed distraught after he was unable to answer questions about his rfd.I was trying to convey the fact that he seemed as though he realized he had made the incorrect decision. No one was angry and to allege it was a "grilling" when you weren't there is rather presumptuous.

Sheboygan North is a baller team, i wasnt trying to belittle their accomplishments; they did win the fucking tournament and they're qualed already. Both teammembers are talented, intelligent, and articulate. Neither of my posts were meant to display or stir up animosity, i was merely explaining the situation. We got fucked. It was illigit.

 

Congrats to you on getting to octas as well

 

also, why are you on the Nebraska Forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon Ian, Dylan had you all cleared up there for a minute. I'm kidding mostly. But hey, you or someone should explain your position or vision of debate for those of us who don't know.

Edited by Danny Tanner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon Ian, Dylan had you all cleared up there for a minute. I'm kidding mostly. But hey, you or someone should explain your position or vision of debate for those of us who don't know.

 

aww shit son.

 

http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/index.php?title=Millard_South_(NE)_-_Ian_Lee_%26_David_Robinson

 

as a context, that's the affirmative (the negative is there too, i suppose). our vision for debate then is one without limits, one that embraces it's excess, one that is formless. it is not a debate that tries to wipe away it's excesses or chases after some perfect divinity nor is it one that imposes order through any sort of homogenizing laws or divisions. what that means for debate is that it's good if we're not topical and framework debate are absolutely the worst kind of exclusions - debate should include as much creativity and joy as possible, and as little sameness and exclusion. in short, don't wipe your ass but rather shit into your hands and write on your body. that's rather brief and i understand not terribly explanatory, but i'm low on battery without a power cord.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't wipe your ass but rather shit into your hands and write on your body

 

Please tell me there won't be any sort of in-round performance......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon Ian, Dylan had you all cleared up there for a minute.

 

Haha, yeah no kidding. Dylan always was good at getting judges ballots...

I think this brings up an important point. Though losing rounds can hurt, especially when you care so much, I think it's best that young debaters do not blame other people when they lose. To me, this connotes a stinging sense of self-entitlement, which distracts from the arguments debaters believe in and work so hard to produce.

 

Those with a lot of experience in debate can tell you, success is a long term process. Even when debaters get to the point where they are always improving and each speech they give is their best to date, it is still totally possible to be involved in rounds where your arguments are strong and fully evaluated, but for whatever reason you lose the debate. I think it would be good for the community if ya'll try to remember that. All of you should be proud that you are leading yourselves toward great futures and focus a little less on the win/loss thing.

 

The stuff about poop was just weird.

 

Congrats to the Millard South Fiction All-Stars!

Edited by joelfulton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No performance.

 

I don't know about the rest of our team but I think what Royers said is how I am going to approach this situation. I am not going to be done being frustrated about this until we have a breakthrough. Millard South debate is on a mission.

 

A quick note about the round and I think it is fair to say that since I have been back to debate I have not post-rounded anyone, anywhere (even at state when a judge voted for a kritik that was not extended). With that being said, I think it is fair to say we are not bitching but this team literally did not answer three impact turns to topicality (the impact being that they literally KILL the debate community.) That is all that they went for. As for the other team I think that their quality is what makes this really hard on judges. They see a team of that caliber and question if they want to send a team who is so indicative of the perfect form of debate they imagine home to a bunch of lawless crazies. Sheboygan shouldn’t apologize for this debate. Maybe they won it. Either way I think our observations have some validity...

 

What I see happening is that judges do not have a chance to judge a whole lot of rounds like the ones that they see us in. They use these opportunities to cast their ballot as a referendum on debate as a whole. While these kinds of meta-decisions are ok for the judge, we have these kinds of rounds every round. (Not because we want to mind you. We would love to have a non-framework debate, but apparently no one can figure out how to make anything link. This is despite the fact that at least five institutes turned out Bataille negatives this year) It can be frustrating. Also, this phenomenon is not untested; for instance at the NDT there is what is referred to informally as the quarter-final ceiling for hyper-critical teams. I am just concerned that we may be hitting a kind of ceiling for high school debate. The only problem is that I am not sure that there are very many cracks in this one. I will tell you one thing…we are going to find out.

 

I think that our approach to this point has been a little bit over focused on winning the line-by-line and acting like that should matter. We need to confront the judges with these observations and confront them with what we see as an engrained penchant to exclude our type of argument. I have two suggestions for our community. Either start including all forms of argument in a non-exclusionary way OR stop acting like this is an open place where people can explore the depth and breadth of argument and its relationship to their uniqueness. We think that we are topical, we think that our argument has serious academic rigor, and we know that we should not be told every round that our argument and by proxy we should not be included in the debate community. 5-1 at valley and octos is great. 4-2 and doubles at Greenhill is a great achievement. But now we have some real fire in our bellies. We will not be satisfied. I think we will make it to the TOC this year…we have a lot of momentum going right now. That would be a great achievement also, but we are also on another path. One not defined by the judges, but by the kids themselves. Countless debaters came up to us over these two tournaments and talked about how much they liked our argument. Ian and David have actually had individuals tell them that we inspired them to stay in debate or somehow made them feel like the community cared about them. This is where the change is going to start. Teachers and judges are not going to be able to control the future of debate, all we can do is empower what feels like a movement and we can only do this TOGETHER. Lastly, we are not going anywhere. We may adapt from time to time and maybe we won’t either way for better or worse the excess is in the building…

Edited by djersen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel,

We lose all the time and don't blame anyone. You didn't see this after we lost at GH. That is because we got beat. Dylan and I are not saying that we are the best in the land. We aren't stupid. That being said this was a hard one to lose...

 

I don't feel entitled at all (maybe others on my team do). I also don't let the feeling that we were on the wrong end of a questionable decision lead us to close down our learning or thinking about debate. This loss has provoked more block writing/discussion/teaching than any win.

 

I was talking with friends and family about this and many indicated that a loss of this nature is maybe what we needed to start a fire. That is done. Maybe this will be a net good experience. I can only say that I hope so.

 

By the way, I want to thank everyone for all of the support from home in following the Nebraska teams at these tournaments. I can honestly say that we feel the support. I want to

congratulate all of the other teams on a good first out at Valley.

Dana

 

Edit-

I also told some people I would post my e-mail so we could talk about arguments. This is for anyone. I am once again a full fledged debate junky so feel free to contact me about whatever: djchristensen@mpsomaha.org

Edited by djersen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha, yeah no kidding. Dylan always was good at getting judges ballots...

I think this brings up an important point. Though losing rounds can hurt, especially when you care so much, I think it's best that young debaters do not blame other people when they lose. To me, this connotes a stinging sense of self-entitlement, which distracts from the arguments debaters believe in and work so hard to produce.

 

Those with a lot of experience in debate can tell you, success is a long term process. Even when debaters get to the point where they are always improving and each speech they give is their best to date, it is still totally possible to be involved in rounds where your arguments are strong and fully evaluated, but for whatever reason you lose the debate. I think it would be good for the community if ya'll try to remember that. All of you should be proud that you are leading yourselves toward great futures and focus a little less on the win/loss thing.

 

The stuff about poop was just weird.

 

Congrats to the Millard South Fiction All-Stars!

 

 

At the end of the day our goal is ultimately to win rounds. That being said, we do appreciate the moderate success that we've enjoyed the last two tournaments. I'm not sure how our feelings of disdain for our loss constitutes a sense of entitlement. We feel like we got screwed. It was evident that at least one of the judges voted based on personal preference (as in that's what she cited as justification) so I really don't think that we've done anything wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stuff about poop was just weird.

 

it is that, yes. it is at least grounded in the literature we're reading about energy and art though, if that helps. plus, is it really any weirder than some of the disads/counterplans we've all listened to? i think...well okay, maybe it is. :)

 

poop-7447.jpg

Edited by TLF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allafranklin!! This is maybe over the line. Just because we like to play with excrement doesn't mean everyone else wants to. I guess that puts a lot into a small nut shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not. As Dylan said, my intent was not to criticize his ability to judge or impugn his credibility, but rather to state that he seemed distraught after he was unable to answer questions about his rfd.I was trying to convey the fact that he seemed as though he realized he had made the incorrect decision. No one was angry and to allege it was a "grilling" when you weren't there is rather presumptuous.

Sheboygan North is a baller team, i wasnt trying to belittle their accomplishments; they did win the fucking tournament and they're qualed already. Both teammembers are talented, intelligent, and articulate. Neither of my posts were meant to display or stir up animosity, i was merely explaining the situation. We got fucked. It was illigit.

 

Congrats to you on getting to octas as well

 

also, why are you on the Nebraska Forum?

 

Yeah, I just hope you know that I'm not meaning to take anything away from you guys or anything. I have a lot of respect for what you're doing, and from what I hear y'all are doing it well. The frustration, I can relate to; this was our second straight weekend of being a ballot from the bid round.

 

It's just that in Minnesota, Jon Chen is considered a pretty legit judge, and in the one round that I had him, was pretty open to all of the unconventional arguments we threw his way. That's why I just found this a bit surprising, especially after seeing him somewhat distraught after said round. Megan Johnson, I don't know about except for the fact that she was one of our coach's high school partner.

 

As to the question about the forum - you may have realized that this forum is aptly named the Great Plains forum, which I guess Minnesota falls into. I just happened to come across this threat during my ill-fated search for a copy of the packet from Valley.

 

Good luck this season - you'll definitely bid at some point, and you've been doing well so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trevor is correct here, you had an extremely legit judging panel. Jon, Nat, and Megan are all very good judges. What people got out of that round from you guys was that you're assholes who post round people and don't make good arguments in the round, but seem to make them when you're bitching after the round. I feel as if I can speak for people, because after that round I heard more than two dozen people discussing what assholes you guys were, and how it'd be nice if you'd remember to make arguments during the debate, instead of only after it.

 

You probably should refrain though from acting like you were screwed and bitching about it. It's one thing to run something unconventional and controversial and be really nice and charming people, but you're clearly digging yourself into a hole. A negative reputation wont help the fact that you guys are already fighting an uphill battle in front of most midwest judges. It's just going to legitimize voting you down in rounds where you perhaps are even more ahead than in this one, especially for Minnesota judges.

 

I had a round that I thought I had clearly won as well at Valley, one against an opponent not nearly as good as Sheb North is. But I knew that it's just a messy complicated round early in the season, and it would have done 0 good to burn bridges in a community that I debate in for the whole year. And I could also respectfully see what I could have done better, and arguments that I needed to have been making slightly more clear in the round.

  • Downvote 2

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...

×
×
  • Create New...