Jump to content
jrose12

2011 TOC

Recommended Posts

Lex ran spec ops

Westminster went for Debt Ceiling + Courts in the 2NR

 

 

Given that this post was from 10 minutes ago, i'd assume its, at earliest, the 2ar. Probs waiting on a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

troll, Westminster won 2-1

apparently it was innitially announced at Lexington but they announced it wrong...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, you are not a troll, you are a good person. Be thankful i have no - rep left, so I didn't use it on you

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Not trying to bash on Beacon's argument or anything like that - I think it has a very important pedagogical value in our activity. I do, however, think that the idea that teams should pick an argument because they personally believe in it and always advocate that argument is problematic. Debate, in my mind, is supposed to be about challenging one's *own* assumptions and learning to argue your opponent's argument as well as your own so that you can understand it better and, in the real world, possibly defeat it.

 

Always reading the same argument makes you vulnerable to dogmatism and makes it more difficult for one to sympathize with another's view. It could be argued that the reason why modern politics today is so bad is because it's incredibly polarizing because people are so ideological that they can't look past their own world views.

 

I'm not advocating moral relativism outside the debate space - believe what you want to believe and what you think is right. But debate is a unique space in which students can experiment and toy with the possibility that they may not know all of the answers. I don't understand why we have to make the round political. For example, a team like Beacon can be anti-racist and advocate a disidentification with the state on the negative (a la authors like Rodriguez) and still be anti-racist on the aff yet advocate a different methodology for that like one that utilizes the state.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I read correctly that both semis rounds were won on T-subs?

Both 2NRs were T-substantial, but only one negative team won. This might be what you meant but I thought I'd clarify.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to bash on Beacon's argument or anything like that - I think it has a very important pedagogical value in our activity. I do, however, think that the idea that teams should pick an argument because they personally believe in it and always advocate that argument is problematic. Debate, in my mind, is supposed to be about challenging one's *own* assumptions and learning to argue your opponent's argument as well as your own so that you can understand it better and, in the real world, possibly defeat it.

 

Always reading the same argument makes you vulnerable to dogmatism and makes it more difficult for one to sympathize with another's view. It could be argued that the reason why modern politics today is so bad is because it's incredibly polarizing because people are so ideological that they can't look past their own world views.

 

I'm not advocating moral relativism outside the debate space - believe what you want to believe and what you think is right. But debate is a unique space in which students can experiment and toy with the possibility that they may not know all of the answers. I don't understand why we have to make the round political. For example, a team like Beacon can be anti-racist and advocate a disidentification with the state on the negative (a la authors like Rodriguez) and still be anti-racist on the aff yet advocate a different methodology for that like one that utilizes the state.

 

I think you are missing a key point of Beacon's (and others) arguments. For example you say you don't understand why they have to make the round political, most performance and/or project teams explicitly or implicitly are making the argument that everything we do is political - there is no outside privileged point of analysis. A choice to read a policy aff that uses is fiat is just as "political" act as choosing to read a project aff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone taped the finals round it would be greatly appreciated by the rest of the community if they posted said video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto. Could anyone who taped ANY rounds upload them to DebateVision/YouTube/Vimeo and post a link.

 

+rep to whoever does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there should be a few videos going up on debate vision in the next few days

 

could someone post a link once they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna post links cause that's extra tedious, but I'm in the process of uploading Beacon's rounds. So far their round 4 v. Carrollton and octos v. Kinkaid are up on vimeo. Just search "toc 2011 beacon" w/out quotation marks and they should all come up.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just watches the octos round between Beacon and kinkaid (or Kinkaid, if they're not still doing the no caps thing). It was awesome; the case was really persuasive, but the neg's specific K was not responded to well in the 2ac or 1ar. I do wish kinkaid hadn't gone for the framework arg in the 1nr, they were way ahead on the k debate and by extending the framework and not answering the perf con stuff well they really gave the aff a way back in to potentially win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you want to see the videos, you have to search 2011 toc beacon on vimeo.com, it won't show up if you just search on google.

 

(sorry for the double post, I can't edit my posts on my phone)

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...