Jump to content
jrose12

2011 TOC

Recommended Posts

They're fairly flexible - they run da's, cp's, etc, but they go for K's most of the time.

 

Also, I saw that Beacon d. St. Marks BM - thats awesome. Beacon being 7-0 is a great way to end a season.

Although I want to agree that Beacon certainly deserves props for this--legit, 7-0 is amazing--however, this might give rise to a ton of teams who will read things the way Beacon did, next year, and they will massacre the arguments (as in not even come close to the way that Beacon debated them).

 

I'm not doing this just to troll, or step on Beacon's success, I think they're awesome, I just think that there will be a lot of posers...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I want to agree that Beacon certainly deserves props for this--legit, 7-0 is amazing--however, this might give rise to a ton of teams who will read things the way Beacon did, next year, and they will massacre the arguments (as in not even come close to the way that Beacon debated them).

 

I'm not doing this just to troll, or step on Beacon's success, I think they're awesome, I just think that there will be a lot of posers...

 

So? The more people calling for what Beacon advocates the better, even if they don't do it as well as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this legal? I'm pretty sure a lot of states' activities associations explicitly ban betting on these kind of events...

 

Probably not, and I'm almost certain they're in violation of CX rules. Reported.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? The more people calling for what Beacon advocates the better, even if they don't do it as well as well.

That's true, my hesitation is about people doing it to win, not b/c they actually care

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just 5-2s

 

There are 18 5-2s as I count, so that means that not even all 5-2s will break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all 5-2s clear always, they do a run-off partial if needed, which is the case this year

 

I count 1 7-0, 4 6-1's, 12 5-2's, which adds to 17, but all 5-2's are guaranteed to clear. This there will be 1 (or 2 if Habler is correct) doubles rounds tonight. The winner of the one will debate the top seed tomorrow in octas (beacon)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the teams who will be in elims (by record) plus the teams in the runoff round:

 

Runoff:

 

Kinkaid BB vs. Jesuit GM - D. Heidt, Eli Jacobs, Tribble

 

Teams Clearing:

 

7-0:

Beacon DF

 

6-1:

Damien FG

GDS KL

St Marks BM

Westminster AT

 

5-2:

Carrollton DU

CPS PY

GBN PP

GBS HJ

Greenhill PP

Hoflo GS

Lexington EV

Mountain Brook MQ

Pembroke HV

Woodward SS

 

The winner of the runoff debate will be in the 16 slot, debating Beacon DF

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I saw that Beacon d. St. Marks BM - thats awesome. Beacon being 7-0 is a great way to end a season.

Although I want to agree that Beacon certainly deserves props for this--legit, 7-0 is amazing--however, this might give rise to a ton of teams who will read things the way Beacon did, next year, and they will massacre the arguments (as in not even come close to the way that Beacon debated them).

 

I'm not doing this just to troll, or step on Beacon's success, I think they're awesome, I just think that there will be a lot of posers...

So? The more people calling for what Beacon advocates the better, even if they don't do it as well as well.

That's true, my hesitation is about people doing it to win, not b/c they actually care

 

I totally agree with frozen that more K debaters will be encouraged by beacon, and that this isn't a good thing. But Beacon, as Hank said, actually cares about their project, they defended it all year, continued to do work, and didn't just read the args they read for strategic value. Thats something I think more debaters should do, and that it would be very valuable for the whole community and K debaters alike to do this more often. There have been some amazing project AFF's this year that have atleast helped open people's eyes - Mercer GP's, Beacon's, even some of Millard South's. To see such arguments that people care about become successful is something even many straight-up debaters would agree has great implications for the community - when people spend a full year reearching and educating others about one specific pedagogical position, it has great education value for both those who listen and those who are presenting it. Lousiveill-style AFF's and NEG's are trickling down to HS debate, and many would argue its a good thing.

 

tl;dr - Beacon cares, like more debaters should.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I want to congratulate Mtn Brook on breaking and the great work from Ross. Y'alls hard work paid off and I'm so glad to see my alma mater this successful! Nothing but love. <3

 

Second, what Beacon did was groundbreaking and deserves nothing but praise. Fear of "posers" is as silly as saying we should fear posers who run the politics disad or a CP because other people had success with those arguments. Fact is that arguments such as Beacons have incredible pedagogical value and a place within the community. Bad debaters who take other people's arguments is inevitable. Yet these forms of arguments can be important for the people who advocate them that you're calling "posers." Debate should be a place where people can learn to be advocates, and that certainly includes identity politics. Just have a strategy against this type of debate; it's really not that difficult. I wrote more on this on the official thread for identity politics / performance arguments in the critique section.

 

Congratulations to everyone else who broke as well!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crappy debaters are non-unique. is there really a difference between bad 'traditional' and 'critical' debates, aside from a different set of misused buzzwords?

 

 

First, I want to congratulate Mtn Brook on breaking and the great work from Ross. Y'alls hard work paid off and I'm so glad to see my alma mater this successful! Nothing but love. <3

 

Second, what Beacon did was groundbreaking and deserves nothing but praise. Fear of "posers" is as silly as saying we should fear posers who run the politics disad or a CP because other people had success with those arguments. Fact is that arguments such as Beacons have incredible pedagogical value and a place within the community. Bad debaters who take other people's arguments is inevitable. Yet these forms of arguments can be important for the people who advocate them that you're calling "posers." Debate should be a place where people can learn to be advocates, and that certainly includes identity politics. Just have a strategy against this type of debate; it's really not that difficult. I wrote more on this on the official thread for identity politics / performance arguments in the critique section.

 

Congratulations to everyone else who broke as well!

 

 

 

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crappy debaters are non-unique. is there really a difference between bad 'traditional' and 'critical' debates, aside from a different set of misused buzzwords?

Yeah, I totally agree that there are already bad debates - but more teams will seriously be encouraged. There are also good K debates with "buzzwords" and good traditional debate. Thats not my point. What Frozen and I were saying is that there will be more and more teams that take the arguments that beacon ran and run them for strategic, not pedagogical, value. It happens with so many good K's - take Fem for example. It started as an argument to try and end oppression, give women a voice in debate, talk about how Nuk war impacts were masculinizing, and as a plain radical movement. Now, its one of another 6 off in a genero 1NC that nobody really learns from. THIS is what many fear will happen to Beacon's arguments.

 

Also, this -

Second, what Beacon did was groundbreaking and deserves nothing but praise. Fear of "posers" is as silly as saying we should fear posers who run the politics disad or a CP because other people had success with those arguments. Fact is that arguments such as Beacons have incredible pedagogical value and a place within the community. Bad debaters who take other people's arguments is inevitable. Yet these forms of arguments can be important for the people who advocate them that you're calling "posers." Debate should be a place where people can learn to be advocates, and that certainly includes identity politics. Just have a strategy against this type of debate; it's really not that difficult. I wrote more on this on the official thread for identity politics / performance arguments in the critique section.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liam- I'm not exactly sure why you're quoting me and if you're indicating you fear things like what I'm saying. Some sort of clarification would be nice.

 

However, it's silly to think that this will be incorporated into a 6 off strategy component when the point of the criticism is that it's very much methodological. Running it with 5 other off cases makes it significantly easier to defeat because of significant framework problems. Maybe some people will run these arguments because they think they are winners, but there's still value that comes from getting to know that literature. The idea that no one would learn from it is kinda absurd just because its incorporated in strategies; education is probably inevitable. Even in your incredibly warped sense of what the Fem K is, people learn about concepts like how masculinity becomes hegemonic and how politics is defined in ways that reassert male values and dominance.

 

At the end of the day it's probably better that minority debaters have someone in the high school circuit that they can look up toward that prove that focusing on their identity can not only be personally liberating but also successful. That very aspect outweighs your silly fear of inevitable bad debater reappropriation. If you really cared about the pedagogical possibilities this very phenomenon offered to the community, you would realize that. Bad debaters who don't know the argument and do it incorrectly will lose. If you do your work, come to know these types of arguments, and are decent at debate, you should be able to beat them. If you can't, maybe you should do work and think about how to approach these arguments that are undeniably inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I totally agree that there are already bad debates - but more teams will seriously be encouraged. There are also good K debates with "buzzwords" and good traditional debate. Thats not my point. What Frozen and I were saying is that there will be more and more teams that take the arguments that beacon ran and run them for strategic, not pedagogical, value. It happens with so many good K's - take Fem for example. It started as an argument to try and end oppression, give women a voice in debate, talk about how Nuk war impacts were masculinizing, and as a plain radical movement. Now, its one of another 6 off in a genero 1NC that nobody really learns from. THIS is what many fear will happen to Beacon's arguments.

 

This is possible, but I think even if project arguments are used as generic "tricks" in a 1nc, they can still do something productive. My friends and I pursued the security k for this very reason at camp this summer. As we grew more acquainted with the literature, we learned a lot and our perspective on international relations changed. So much of what I've read and learned due to debate is from awful genero arguments. I probably wouldn't have done as well on the AP Gov test without the politics da and agent counterplans, I wouldn't have started a philosophy club at school if it weren't for generic kritiks, and I wouldn't be as overall open minded a person if it weren't for the various arguments I've encountered in my time in debate. I do think it is sad when meaningful or creative arguments are taken out of context or watered down for a cheap win, but this diffusion of ideas is still productive and potentially life changing. That is what I love most about debate--even at its most banal and absurd moments it offers so much to learn.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify--I'm not saying performance is bad. I'm saying people shouldn't detract from the sincerity of the performance by making it a "strategic" argument, or do it to catch people off guard (cue spanos).

 

There is a distinction between performance and cp+politics. CP+Politics is policy debating. Imho that's engaging in debate. Performance is like engaging debate, challenging or questioning debate. I'm not trying to deter performance teams from challenging debate. I'm trying to deter someone "challenging debate" every round b/c they want to win without having a sincere respect for the argument.

 

Also, I'm definitely not saying Beacon is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engaging in debate and engaging debate are not mutually exclusive.

 

Debate is a competitive activity, and maybe that does mean that sometimes people will run the argument for strategic purposes, but that is not to say that even in those instances something valuable doesn't emerge. Having those conversations can be immensely important for the people who are engaging in it, even if the motives to initially go into it are flawed.

 

There's also ways to challenge teams who deploy it in that way. It's very difficult to say "X Person doesn't actually give a shit about 'projects' in debate." But if they engage in practices that prove that (methodologically contradicting itself, not engaging in their own framework, etc.) it should be easy to call them out on that and potentially win on it.

 

There's a problem when you say you're trying to "deter" people from doing that. How exactly ARE you deterring people? This trope that they do this "every debate" and that being bad is so tired and not a real argument.

 

This fear is so misplaced and such a major distraction from what happened. Yes, even teams like Beacon and others who challenge debate enjoy winning (SHOCKER.) A lot of people in high school are deterred from engaging in these debates because they don't think it's feasible. This sent out a message that's really important and provided a role model in the high school community for people who need these kinds of arguments. Finally the role model is in the TOC and not at CEDA or the NDT. It's your community that has finally rewarded this style of argumentation with the economy of the ballot. At the end of the day, that's such a bigger deal than all this bullshit "poser fear" and fear of others being un-genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is possible, but I think even if project arguments are used as generic "tricks" in a 1nc, they can still do something productive. My friends and I pursued the security k for this very reason at camp this summer. As we grew more acquainted with the literature, we learned a lot and our perspective on international relations changed. So much of what I've read and learned due to debate is from awful genero arguments. I probably wouldn't have done as well on the AP Gov test without the politics da and agent counterplans, I wouldn't have started a philosophy club at school if it weren't for generic kritiks, and I wouldn't be as overall open minded a person if it weren't for the various arguments I've encountered in my time in debate. I do think it is sad when meaningful or creative arguments are taken out of context or watered down for a cheap win, but this diffusion of ideas is still productive and potentially life changing. That is what I love most about debate--even at its most banal and absurd moments it offers so much to learn.

Perhaps it is "eye-openning" - but you could also get this form of eye openning from seeing other persons points of view. As I said above, anybody who debated beacon last year probably thought atleast a bit about their project. However, I think that having to defend things and actually genuinly believe them is probably a lot more educational and provides a more beneficial pedagogical experience - a. It means you dont get to contradict yourself - 6 off, where one is a security K, would probably include something else that turns out to be securitizing b. you get to know things more. You arn't blocking out 6 off, you're researching one thing.

Also, I don't really think this post responds to mine - i am saying we need to deter people from disgenuinly believing something - what you are doing from your knowledge of security is way way better than pulling a genero fem K and not letting it apply to your every day life at all.

 

Also, I'm definitely not saying Beacon is bad.

Don't worry, i dont think anybody said you were.

 

Let me clarify--I'm not saying performance is bad. I'm saying people shouldn't detract from the sincerity of the performance by making it a "strategic" argument, or do it to catch people off guard (cue spanos).

 

There is a distinction between performance and cp+politics. CP+Politics is policy debating. Imho that's engaging in debate. Performance is like engaging debate, challenging or questioning debate. I'm not trying to deter performance teams from challenging debate. I'm trying to deter someone "challenging debate" every round b/c they want to win without having a sincere respect for the argument.

 

 

I agree with you that we should deter teams from performance against policy debate without a sincere respect for the arguments. I think i've made that pretty clear above - esp with my example of Fem.

 

However, I disagree with your idea that there is a distinction between "performance" and "cp+politics." I would argue that CP+politics isperformance, while your def of performance:

Performance is like engaging debate, challenging or questioning debate. I'm not trying to deter performance teams from challenging debate.

if kritiking forms of debate, which is also performance, but a performance for something else (whatever the pedagogical viewpoint you support happens to be).

Look at it this way - if you stand up and start reading your genero skfta DA, you are still making the performance of skfta. The only difference between this and what the performance teams you are talking about are doing is that they look at the face value/pedagogical implications of one sort of performance. For example, I would say that every time somebody reads a nuclear war impact, they are making a sort of performace against nuclear war, and towards securitizing nuclear war, making nuclear war into a threat, etc. It is precisely that performance that was the basis of Mercer Island's project AFF this year, and many others around the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"because one team that doesn't run the 'normal' blah blah blah debate arguments was successful, moar teams will start running them"

 

for some reason that sounds like a good thing to me...

 

this artificial k/policy divide shit is so arbitrary and useless.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Feminism is generally used in debate as a strategic argument. But because it's strategic, other debaters - being strategic - had to check their sexist practices, and learn more about sexism in order to identify it in their own arguments and avoid linking to it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. Feminism is generally used in debate as a strategic argument. But because it's strategic, other debaters - being strategic - had to check their sexist practices, and learn more about sexism in order to identify it in their own arguments and avoid linking to it.

 

I don't think I've ever seen it used strategically.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...