Jump to content
mattcasas

"performance" Vs "performance" In College Debate

Recommended Posts

*****More people need to record quality outround debates--particularly at national circuit debate tournaments and post them and tag them and tell folks--so that the next generation of debaters have more debate role models.

 

*****You can be that person. Your team can be that team. You can make debate better through your actions to record quality outrounds as a judge or as a non-competing student, or as a competitor--so no matter your role.

 

On a side note, should probably first point out that that debate was Doubles of Wake Forrest from 2012.

 

What are the other debates or speeches that are worth checking out from Ben Crossman (the owner of the Vimeo account)\

 

(Sorry vimeo doesn't want me to link to his URL page on vimeo--it just posts an error message)

 

I know a number of them were form high school--is this the only college debate on Ben Crossman's vimeo account?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched this round several times. It's a really awesome, personal debate, and really just reinforces my love for this activity. Every speech in this round is very powerful. It's a must-watch.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the room (the tiny, tiny room) for that debate. Powerful stuff. It was a shame that they had to meet in doubles because those two teams could have easily taken out most of the rest of the teams that cleared (no disrespect to them).

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost it at about 9:30 of the 2AC video.

 

"This ain't no bulls--t like 'I accept your theory...'"

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a number of them were form high school--is this the only college debate on Ben Crossman's vimeo account?

 

Nah, there are several college debates on that account (several between Towson CK and First Round teams). It's worth sifting through the pages.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too much yelling going on for me. The cross examination of Casas bothered me, specifically.

 

I felt like the affirmative arguments had a lot of potential but that they were in a bad position because they couldn't really get any offense out of the round due to a very strategic 1NC. I also felt like they didn't do a great job of leveraging the good arguments they had and connecting them into a synthesized overall argument. Overall it felt like they were haphazardly responding to the negative's arguments instead of making their own.

 

Also, the affirmative's main argument was a permutation, but their style was aggressive and the points they chose to emphasize were the ones which most exemplified the problems with their argument. They never really engaged with Casas' narrative in any real way, and they continued to focus on black gold throughout the debate despite the fact that they were basically depending on the permutation to win, which means that their time and emphasis would have been better spent elsewhere. Conversely, the negative did a good job of acknowledging the affirmative in a way that seemed very authentic to me.

 

I feel like the ideas presented in this debate were basically evenly matched, but that the team who utilized and presented and exemplified those ideas most clearly and effectively was the negative. That and the absence of offense by the affirmative were both what contributed to the negative victory.

 

I disagree with the people saying this was a great debate. I liked parts of it. Other parts of it just seemed bad to me though. It was definitely worth watching and I think an important point was made in it. But I felt like the negative was winning basically the entire time, and so it wasn't really that competitive of a round.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the people saying this was a great debate. I liked parts of it. Other parts of it just seemed bad to me though. It was definitely worth watching and I think an important point was made in it. But I felt like the negative was winning basically the entire time, and so it wasn't really that competitive of a round.

 

Except for this, I completely agree with you on how I thought this round went. At the same time, I wouldn't say that this was a bad round simply because both of these teams are some of the best in college debate at the time. There are other elim debates that I watched at Wake that were equally as "uncompetitive" as this one, but it doesn't mean that the debate wasn't good, just that one team just won. I didn't see this round in person, but I was at Wake, and after watching it here, I almost wish that I had watched it there in person.

 

At the same time, for as uncompetitive this round was, it looks like Oklahoma CL did a lot better at the Cali swings. (I think they got 2nd at USC, and lost in Octos at Fullerton.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the rounds that are going to be posted from ceda national tournament should be interesting. I suggest that anybody who enjoys this round should go check them out.

 

PS:The final round between West Georgia and Emporia I heard was amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too much yelling going on for me. The cross examination of Casas bothered me, specifically.

 

I felt like the affirmative arguments had a lot of potential but that they were in a bad position because they couldn't really get any offense out of the round due to a very strategic 1NC. I also felt like they didn't do a great job of leveraging the good arguments they had and connecting them into a synthesized overall argument. Overall it felt like they were haphazardly responding to the negative's arguments instead of making their own.

 

Also, the affirmative's main argument was a permutation, but their style was aggressive and the points they chose to emphasize were the ones which most exemplified the problems with their argument. They never really engaged with Casas' narrative in any real way, and they continued to focus on black gold throughout the debate despite the fact that they were basically depending on the permutation to win, which means that their time and emphasis would have been better spent elsewhere. Conversely, the negative did a good job of acknowledging the affirmative in a way that seemed very authentic to me.

 

I feel like the ideas presented in this debate were basically evenly matched, but that the team who utilized and presented and exemplified those ideas most clearly and effectively was the negative. That and the absence of offense by the affirmative were both what contributed to the negative victory.

 

I disagree with the people saying this was a great debate. I liked parts of it. Other parts of it just seemed bad to me though. It was definitely worth watching and I think an important point was made in it. But I felt like the negative was winning basically the entire time, and so it wasn't really that competitive of a round.

After watching, I agree with this post 100%. It speaks to the importance of intersectional analysis generally and postcolonial feminism specifically that every debater in the room felt the need to shout their speech and talk over each other. Matt's quiet approach queered that debate space in a way that every single other debater in the room failed to do. I would have voted for him, and him only.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like they could've played less on the perm and more on the offense against normal speech (ie. "while they were writing this beautiful speech, we were [etc.]" [i forget the exact quote]), almost as a NB to the perm. I don't have much experience with this however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the video? I would really love to watch it. 

Here's the 1AC, and you can find the rest of the videos on that user's video hosting history (it might be a few pages back though): http://vimeo.com/53953495

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1nc and 1nr aren't there . I'm guessing Casas asked for them to be taken down?

Man, that's super unfortunate. Those two speeches (and the debate in general) were pretty influential on me as a new debater - watching this debate made me totally rethink my position on the value of identity-based arguments, kritikal affs, and "performance" (purely for lack of a better term) debate in general.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, that's super unfortunate. Those two speeches (and the debate in general) were pretty influential on me as a new debater - watching this debate made me totally rethink my position on the value of identity-based arguments, kritikal affs, and "performance" (purely for lack of a better term) debate in general.

 I believe that some schools just don't want videos of there debaters on the internet . I.E. I don't think either Semi's rounds from Wake this year got Uploaded because of that. 

  • Upvote 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...