Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, XrossEcramination said:

 

Just disclose. It literally takes like 5 minutes and you can easily do it after each debate or at least after every tournament. There's not a right to disclosure, but you probably shouldn't be taking advantage of other debaters by seeing what they've disclosed when you won't at least do the same. If you have a problem remembering past 2NRs there's a super easy solution to that: use your wiki.

the aff is public charge with an ableism advantage and the 2nr is always either gonna be queer killjoy, deleuze, or state visas + midterms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mackarymuffin said:

the aff is public charge with an ableism advantage and the 2nr is always either gonna be queer killjoy, deleuze, or state visas + midterms

I really think ur right in this regard - NL is p good about emailing you back with stuff, and either ways you've probably already hit them on the dallas circuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mackarymuffin said:

i dont even know you my g lets chill out with the slander. let's keep two things in mind regarding disclosure - 1) nobody has a right to it and disclosure comes from an urban privileged perspective; 2) im too lazy for the wiki - my email is zacharyhuffman701@gmail.com if you have any disclosure questions. i tend to have a hard time remembering past 2NR's so my bad on that. get over it.

In reference to the critique of my debate style, keep in mind that I am literally the only person that writes any blocks on my team because we're too poor to hire prep coaches. These graduated people haven't seen me debate in a hot minute so I don't think they can attest to my skills but I can assure you we've gotten better since last year.

This whole thread is sprinkled with elitism. Just wait to see NL HH in the 2nd semester and next year on the NDT circuit

 

4
4

@mackarymuffin I admit I was in the wrong about the slander and I apologize for berating you. Obviously, your success this year shows otherwise and I hope to see you do well. However, your position on disclosure is absurd and I will call you out on it. 

1. "nobody has a right to it and disclosure comes from an urban privileged perspective"

This is incorrect, if anything, disclosure favors small schools who don't have access to the resources that big schools have, i.e. small schools using MBA's open sourced prep because they simply don't have the resources that big schools have. Think to yourself, what benefit do big teams have by open-sourcing all of their files? None. It's there for small schools who don't have the resources to prep out every nit-picky big school AFF so that there can still be clash and they aren't always losing due to a lack of prep. Big School's don't care because they always have a backfile to answer any new AFF wheras Small Schools like NL don't have prep-coaches to do everything. This is simply absurd that it's from an "urban privileged perspective" because that very norm is what allows you to not have the fear that all your prep goes to moot at a tournament because Greenhill reads a new AFF. Also, yes it's not a right, but it is a norm. With that logic, big teams have a justification for not disclosing because it's not a so-called right. 

2. "im too lazy for the wiki"

Yes, I can tell. Not something to be proud of especially since it restricts people from prepping you out. You only have one AFF disclosed but have read 3 AFF's this year (from what I know). This laziness is what moots everyone's pre-round prep because they are all prepping Open Borders when in actuality you are either reading Public Charge or Adjudicators. You stating your AFF's on cross-x doesn't do anything because other schools who don't use cross-x can't see. If you want proof, look at this screenshot. 

 

I am not trying to denigrate you but this is a problem. You probably are a great person Zach and sorry if I'm coming off rude but this is just absurd. 

 

If this thread is sprinkled with elitism, you are complicit within it. Your strategies of mis-disclosure are elitist and hurt's small school prep. 

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-29 at 9.43.23 PM.png

Edited by bhadbhabie
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bhadbhabie said:

@mackarymuffin I admit I was in the wrong about the slander and I apologize for berating you. Obviously, your success this year shows otherwise and I hope to see you do well. However, your position on disclosure is absurd and I will call you out on it. 

1. "nobody has a right to it and disclosure comes from an urban privileged perspective"

This is incorrect, if anything, disclosure favors small schools who don't have access to the resources that big schools have, i.e. small schools using MBA's open sourced prep because they simply don't have the resources that big schools have. Think to yourself, what benefit do big teams have by open-sourcing all of their files? None. It's there for small schools who don't have the resources to prep out every nit-picky big school AFF so that there can still be clash and they aren't always losing due to a lack of prep. Big School's don't care because they always have a backfile to answer any new AFF wheras Small Schools like NL don't have prep-coaches to do everything. This is simply absurd that it's from an "urban privileged perspective" because that very norm is what allows you to not have the fear that all your prep goes to moot at a tournament because Greenhill reads a new AFF. Also, yes it's not a right, but it is a norm. With that logic, big teams have a justification for not disclosing because it's not a so-called right. 

2. "im too lazy for the wiki"

Yes, I can tell. Not something to be proud of especially since it restricts people from prepping you out. You only have one AFF disclosed but have read 3 AFF's this year (from what I know). This laziness is what moots everyone's pre-round prep because they are all prepping Open Borders when in actuality you are either reading Public Charge or Adjudicators. You stating your AFF's on cross-x doesn't do anything because other schools who don't use cross-x can't see. If you want proof, look at this screenshot. 

 

I am not trying to denigrate you but this is a problem. You probably are a great person Zach and sorry if I'm coming off rude but this is just absurd. 

 

If this thread is sprinkled with elitism, you are complicit within it. Your strategies of mis-disclosure are elitist and hurt's small school prep. 

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-29 at 9.43.23 PM.png

thats where you're wrong my g. small schools usually emphasize extemporaneous type prep when debating. for example, I created the first wiki page for North Lamar in it's 20+ year debate history. before then the first time we made 1NC's was in the 8 minutes the 1AC was being read. I know it's difficult for big schools to grasp this idea, but small schools don't use the wiki at all most of the time. the expectation for teams at "larger" tournaments to disclose now disadvantages smaller schools because when they don't create a wiki (because they don't even know about it) they lose on disclosure theory (which is the worst argument in debate). NL has a wiki but we never use the wiki itself. me and garrett typically ask what the aff is right before the round for a few reasons - 1) its better practice for smaller schools than ourselves 2) it prevents the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate and discourages two ships passing in the night type debate and 3) we lowkey like the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand, hence the *sometimes* bad strategy critique someone had of me lmao.

I understand the equitable ground the wiki gives an opportunity for, but it has turned into a tool that is used to disadvantage small teams. This once again goes back to the prep coach standard - let's say I'm a small school, I use the wiki but have no prep coaches. MBA or Ghill gets my aff and their array of coaches prep out the pre-typed blocks for the debaters to read. Meanwhile, I get their aff, make my own strategy with limited evidence and blocks due to time and personnel, and then lose because the other big school out resourced me in the preparation period. Those schools can cut cards at a 10:1 rate than I can - it's way more fair if there's at least an element of surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 21savage said:

thats where you're wrong my g. small schools usually emphasize extemporaneous type prep when debating. for example, I created the first wiki page for North Lamar in it's 20+ year debate history. before then the first time we made 1NC's was in the 8 minutes the 1AC was being read. I know it's difficult for big schools to grasp this idea, but small schools don't use the wiki at all most of the time. the expectation for teams at "larger" tournaments to disclose now disadvantages smaller schools because when they don't create a wiki (because they don't even know about it) they lose on disclosure theory (which is the worst argument in debate). NL has a wiki but we never use the wiki itself. me and garrett typically ask what the aff is right before the round for a few reasons - 1) its better practice for smaller schools than ourselves 2) it prevents the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate and discourages two ships passing in the night type debate and 3) we lowkey like the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand, hence the *sometimes* bad strategy critique someone had of me lmao.

I understand the equitable ground the wiki gives an opportunity for, but it has turned into a tool that is used to disadvantage small teams. This once again goes back to the prep coach standard - let's say I'm a small school, I use the wiki but have no prep coaches. MBA or Ghill gets my aff and their array of coaches prep out the pre-typed blocks for the debaters to read. Meanwhile, I get their aff, make my own strategy with limited evidence and blocks due to time and personnel, and then lose because the other big school out resourced me in the preparation period. Those schools can cut cards at a 10:1 rate than I can - it's way more fair if there's at least an element of surprise.

I'm going to preface this whole blurb by stating that disclosure is a good thing and that my wiki from last year is almost overpopulated with disclosure. 

Still, Zach pretty much sums up the small school wiki dilemma. The wiki has noble intentions, but Zach outlined the drawbacks to that. I've personally experienced this, and it leads to debates underlined by resources per team instead of innovation in round. The people from larger schools can keep saying the wiki is necessary. No team has the "right" to see the entire damn aff before the round. I get that the norms have evolved into the 1NC being ready before the 1AC has started, but I prefer disclosure that is more accessible and reasonable, especially when consultants and coaches are waiting to prep out every aspect of an aff or neg strat. You can all be annoyed at Zach for lazily updating his wiki, but it's equally absurd to expect him to give up his footing before a round. I've debated him, he discloses in person, and he'll even take clarification questions if his initial disclosure isn't clear enough. Most small school debaters aware of disclosure norms will disclose before a round. 

It seems quite elitist to tell the small schools how, where and when to disclose, and then telling them it was all for their own benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 21savage said:

thats where you're wrong my g. small schools usually emphasize extemporaneous type prep when debating. for example, I created the first wiki page for North Lamar in it's 20+ year debate history. before then the first time we made 1NC's was in the 8 minutes the 1AC was being read. I know it's difficult for big schools to grasp this idea, but small schools don't use the wiki at all most of the time. the expectation for teams at "larger" tournaments to disclose now disadvantages smaller schools because when they don't create a wiki (because they don't even know about it) they lose on disclosure theory (which is the worst argument in debate). NL has a wiki but we never use the wiki itself. me and garrett typically ask what the aff is right before the round for a few reasons - 1) its better practice for smaller schools than ourselves 2) it prevents the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate and discourages two ships passing in the night type debate and 3) we lowkey like the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand, hence the *sometimes* bad strategy critique someone had of me lmao.

I understand the equitable ground the wiki gives an opportunity for, but it has turned into a tool that is used to disadvantage small teams. This once again goes back to the prep coach standard - let's say I'm a small school, I use the wiki but have no prep coaches. MBA or Ghill gets my aff and their array of coaches prep out the pre-typed blocks for the debaters to read. Meanwhile, I get their aff, make my own strategy with limited evidence and blocks due to time and personnel, and then lose because the other big school out resourced me in the preparation period. Those schools can cut cards at a 10:1 rate than I can - it's way more fair if there's at least an element of surprise.

 

Being able to think on the fly is a great skill, but debate is not just that. If there is no disclosure except for 5 minutes before the round then there's no incentive to ever do pre-round prep because you don't know what affs you have to prep against. And people breaking new affs or reading old affs that are modified lets people think on the fly plenty. Making every 1NC during the 1AC means that debates often default to generics and have bad strategy because you only had 8 minutes to plan out your whole strategy. Maintaining a wiki is incredibly easy as long as you regularly update it, and if schools refuse to meet this basic standard of courtesy when trying to going to tournaments and end up having trouble then oh well, should've updated your wiki. Disclosure theory is probably not the worst argument, because there's an obvious disparity in fairness when x small school gets to look at the wikis of everyone they might debate at a tournament but nobody gets to look at theirs, which means that x small school can enter every debate with in-depth strategies and answers while everyone else is coming up with their 1nc during the 1ac, which structurally favors the aff.

1-It's not a better practice for smaller schools. If x tiny school debates y tiny school and neither of them has a wiki, then they get a shallow and generic debate because neither of them had any chance at guessing what their opponents might do. Going into every single debate not knowing what could happen means that ideas won't be tested or explored as in depth as they could be if you just disclosed.

2-It actively supports the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate because there's usually not enough time to prep a whole 8 minute 2AC or 2NC from scratch when you only knew what the debate was going to be about a few minutes before or even during the debate. When debaters can't have lots of pre-round prep they'll just read generics at each other and not contextualize to each others arguments-look at the Fed DA/States CP debate that happened probably a few thousand times on the education topic and was pretty much the same 90% of those times.

3-You liking "the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand" doesn't mean that everyone will do that. That's not accessible to all debaters because some people process things differently and might need more time to do pre-round prep. If you don't want to prep, then do whatever, but your bad disclosure is making the choice for other people which isn't great.

 

If you're a small school with no coaching, chances are that MBA or Greenhill isn't that worried about you and probably won't over prep your aff. Big schools often spend the most time prepping against other big schools who they're scared of. There will also inevitable be some disparities between big schools and small schools, but not disclosing doesn't help that-if anything it makes it worse. The reason that big schools are successful is because they spend a ridiculous amount of time on prep, and there's not a super great remedy to that for small schools. It's also much better that a small school gets the aff of a big school in advance so that they can do some prep for it, even if it's limited. If you lose because the other team did more prep against you than you did against them, you deserve to lose that debate. They put in more work and they should win. An "element of surprise" might sound great against MBA or Greenhill, but what about when you hit a school smaller than yours and hit them with your "element of surprise." That's a bad and shallow debate. And an "element of surprise" doesn't really do that much to give you a fairer debate against a giant school because your aff probably isn't that different from one that they've prepped so far and they can use that against you, and they've got tens of thousands of pages of backfiles that they can apply to your aff. 

 

2 hours ago, HunterJordan said:

I'm going to preface this whole blurb by stating that disclosure is a good thing and that my wiki from last year is almost overpopulated with disclosure. 

Still, Zach pretty much sums up the small school wiki dilemma. The wiki has noble intentions, but Zach outlined the drawbacks to that. I've personally experienced this, and it leads to debates underlined by resources per team instead of innovation in round. The people from larger schools can keep saying the wiki is necessary. No team has the "right" to see the entire damn aff before the round. I get that the norms have evolved into the 1NC being ready before the 1AC has started, but I prefer disclosure that is more accessible and reasonable, especially when consultants and coaches are waiting to prep out every aspect of an aff or neg strat. You can all be annoyed at Zach for lazily updating his wiki, but it's equally absurd to expect him to give up his footing before a round. I've debated him, he discloses in person, and he'll even take clarification questions if his initial disclosure isn't clear enough. Most small school debaters aware of disclosure norms will disclose before a round. 

It seems quite elitist to tell the small schools how, where and when to disclose, and then telling them it was all for their own benefit. 

 

Yea disclosure is dope.

Innovation in round shouldn't be the only standard of debate because, while quick thinking is a nice skill, there are some people who need to have more pre-round prep to get familiar with arguments, and forcing them to adapt to "innovation in round" makes their experience of debate worse and means that they won't be able to debate as well as they could have if you'd disclosed. Even if you don't disclose the entire 1AC, at least disclose what aff it is, the plan and advantages or something. Bad disclosure that only happens right before the round is definitely not more accessible or reasonable. Updating your wiki isn't "giving up your footing" it's making debate better. If the only way that you win debates is by surprising your opponents so that they don't have anything to say against you, you aren't doing good debating.

The norms that small schools follow often aren't great. I've heard a lot of small school debaters say and do quite bad things because the circuits they regularly compete in are stuck in the 90s. It's not "elitist" to want to give people a more fair shot at pre-round prep. It's also not telling small schools exactly how to disclose, just that they should do it and not just 5 minutes before a round. The only reason the wiki is a great standard is because it's free and easy and everyone can access to it. Even teams that do use the wiki use it in lots of different ways-some open source everything, some put cites for everything, some just put up their 1acs. Disclosure norms that have been set up by the debate community are almost universally a pretty good thing, and getting people to follow them is great for debate.

 

4 hours ago, VishvakBandi said:

I really think ur right in this regard - NL is p good about emailing you back with stuff, and either ways you've probably already hit them on the dallas circuit

Yea emailing disclosure is fine but not as great as wiki disclosure, and this doesn't account for the people who aren't on the Dallas circuit. It's also important to have a centralized place for disclosure, like the wiki, because disclosing on a website like this or just if someone emails you isn't going to get around to as many people, because most debaters aren't on this website. If you're going to a big tournament like St. Marks and all 70 other teams who are going email you individually for speech docs, that's a lot more work for you than it is to just update your wiki so they can all look at it without bugging you.

 

Disclosure is good people. Do it. Your small school whining doesn't really hold up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, XrossEcramination said:

 

Being able to think on the fly is a great skill, but debate is not just that. If there is no disclosure except for 5 minutes before the round then there's no incentive to ever do pre-round prep because you don't know what affs you have to prep against. And people breaking new affs or reading old affs that are modified lets people think on the fly plenty. Making every 1NC during the 1AC means that debates often default to generics and have bad strategy because you only had 8 minutes to plan out your whole strategy. Maintaining a wiki is incredibly easy as long as you regularly update it, and if schools refuse to meet this basic standard of courtesy when trying to going to tournaments and end up having trouble then oh well, should've updated your wiki. Disclosure theory is probably not the worst argument, because there's an obvious disparity in fairness when x small school gets to look at the wikis of everyone they might debate at a tournament but nobody gets to look at theirs, which means that x small school can enter every debate with in-depth strategies and answers while everyone else is coming up with their 1nc during the 1ac, which structurally favors the aff.

1-It's not a better practice for smaller schools. If x tiny school debates y tiny school and neither of them has a wiki, then they get a shallow and generic debate because neither of them had any chance at guessing what their opponents might do. Going into every single debate not knowing what could happen means that ideas won't be tested or explored as in depth as they could be if you just disclosed.

2-It actively supports the "reading bad blocks at each other" style of debate because there's usually not enough time to prep a whole 8 minute 2AC or 2NC from scratch when you only knew what the debate was going to be about a few minutes before or even during the debate. When debaters can't have lots of pre-round prep they'll just read generics at each other and not contextualize to each others arguments-look at the Fed DA/States CP debate that happened probably a few thousand times on the education topic and was pretty much the same 90% of those times.

3-You liking "the challenge of not prepping teams out beforehand" doesn't mean that everyone will do that. That's not accessible to all debaters because some people process things differently and might need more time to do pre-round prep. If you don't want to prep, then do whatever, but your bad disclosure is making the choice for other people which isn't great.

 

If you're a small school with no coaching, chances are that MBA or Greenhill isn't that worried about you and probably won't over prep your aff. Big schools often spend the most time prepping against other big schools who they're scared of. There will also inevitable be some disparities between big schools and small schools, but not disclosing doesn't help that-if anything it makes it worse. The reason that big schools are successful is because they spend a ridiculous amount of time on prep, and there's not a super great remedy to that for small schools. It's also much better that a small school gets the aff of a big school in advance so that they can do some prep for it, even if it's limited. If you lose because the other team did more prep against you than you did against them, you deserve to lose that debate. They put in more work and they should win. An "element of surprise" might sound great against MBA or Greenhill, but what about when you hit a school smaller than yours and hit them with your "element of surprise." That's a bad and shallow debate. And an "element of surprise" doesn't really do that much to give you a fairer debate against a giant school because your aff probably isn't that different from one that they've prepped so far and they can use that against you, and they've got tens of thousands of pages of backfiles that they can apply to your aff. 

 

 

Yea disclosure is dope.

Innovation in round shouldn't be the only standard of debate because, while quick thinking is a nice skill, there are some people who need to have more pre-round prep to get familiar with arguments, and forcing them to adapt to "innovation in round" makes their experience of debate worse and means that they won't be able to debate as well as they could have if you'd disclosed. Even if you don't disclose the entire 1AC, at least disclose what aff it is, the plan and advantages or something. Bad disclosure that only happens right before the round is definitely not more accessible or reasonable. Updating your wiki isn't "giving up your footing" it's making debate better. If the only way that you win debates is by surprising your opponents so that they don't have anything to say against you, you aren't doing good debating.

The norms that small schools follow often aren't great. I've heard a lot of small school debaters say and do quite bad things because the circuits they regularly compete in are stuck in the 90s. It's not "elitist" to want to give people a more fair shot at pre-round prep. It's also not telling small schools exactly how to disclose, just that they should do it and not just 5 minutes before a round. The only reason the wiki is a great standard is because it's free and easy and everyone can access to it. Even teams that do use the wiki use it in lots of different ways-some open source everything, some put cites for everything, some just put up their 1acs. Disclosure norms that have been set up by the debate community are almost universally a pretty good thing, and getting people to follow them is great for debate.

 

Yea emailing disclosure is fine but not as great as wiki disclosure, and this doesn't account for the people who aren't on the Dallas circuit. It's also important to have a centralized place for disclosure, like the wiki, because disclosing on a website like this or just if someone emails you isn't going to get around to as many people, because most debaters aren't on this website. If you're going to a big tournament like St. Marks and all 70 other teams who are going email you individually for speech docs, that's a lot more work for you than it is to just update your wiki so they can all look at it without bugging you.

 

Disclosure is good people. Do it. Your small school whining doesn't really hold up. 

you obviously come from a pretty privileged school. however i think you’re missing the point - i disclose, but it shouldn’t be considered mandatory to the point that people lose debates based on disclosure. big schools need to stop whining so much and just get better at debating on the fly like it was intended. the wiki is how big schools remain ahead so much. i spend >50 hours a week working on debate and still don’t have the blocks to compete with many. the only way i beat teams like jesuit etc. is through my in round innovation. every single 2ac/2nc i make is from scratch sans like generic case overviews. big schools try to force the wiki on every other school for undeniable reasons - to “out resource” them with prep. these big schools dont work harder than me they just have more people doing it for them. idk how many times a prep coach has asked me for the aff and not the debaters themselves. it is the definition of elitism to tell small schools that they should be happy with a website that forces them into a position of submissiveness. yall just dont know what its like to not have any money in your debate budget. lmao at yall actually thinking you know whats best for small schools when people out here cutting cards for you. must be nice. also, innovative debate doesn’t always mean generic debate - if that’s what you think then you need to get better at debating. there is a such thing as generic positions with a link wall. you dont need the wiki for that. besides that, everyones gonna read the same shit every round anyways. also, you’re wrong about big schools not prepping small schools. well, you’re halfway right.. the big schools only start prepping us when we beat their entire squad at one tournament

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are ups and downs to the idea of disclosure. I come from a small school that sometimes dabbles in larger tournaments but I find it incredibly hard putting my stuff on the wiki so that other people may prep it out but these other teams don’t have their stuff on there. It’s not an issue I have in terms of larger tournaments where the larger schools are good about disclosing. It’s when there are small schools at local tournaments that know how to use the wiki and just refuse to. I believe it would be wrong for me to delete stuff after it’s alrw there, so now at locals teams can prep me out but I can’t do the same. This proves to be especially detrimental at tournaments like UIL state. This is because in 4a the only 2 squads that actually somewhat utilize the wiki is us and north Lamar. This now allows the other 60 teams there to see our affs while not returning the favor. That’s the problem I have with disclosure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm from a pretty privileged school - I go to Coppell, whatever. I still think disclosure is good and people should do their best to disclose. But there's a lot of things that make it hard for me to warrant disclosure to the extent I do it. I don't have to go put up my cites on my neg wiki, or fill out a complete round report - but I do it because I think its good for debate. 

My problem with disclosing is other schools not doing their fair share of it. I go to bigger locals like UNT or Plano, but on the off weekends where I go to smaller locals where nobody discloses, I have no incentive to disclose outside of the fact that its good for community norms. I still do it and send stuff before the round and send email chains to people, but it's coming to a point where I know if I disclose more stuff or if I agree to send speech docs people read against me, I will 100% be seeing the same stuff read against me, and its not something I want to incentivize. A lot of people have been extremely good about disclosure, like the more relevant local teams like Athens and NL, and I think its becoming better for norms in this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 1:09 PM, HunterJordan said:

Hey everyone, especially Elmer (the only person that recognizes me on this thread)

I agree that Woodlands MR and Coppell DR (massive shout out to Shrey kicking ass) shouldn't be left off the list, and the majority of everything else said so far is true, with Greenhill, Hendrickson, St Marks and so forth. 

Where I can offer insight would be with Paris North Lamar HH. Brief backstory, I went to Prosper HS, which is a suburb school in Northern DFW, so local TFA tournaments almost always featured North Lamar, alongside other mainstays like Coppell, McKinney Boyd (Elmer), and others. During this, North Lamar HH debated me a ton over the past few years (with different partnerships) Specifically, I think I went like 3-1 collectively against Zach Huffman with his various partners. From my biased, narrow point of view: He's a phenomenal debater in the right setting, but he definitely can be shifty about disclosure and suspect evidence. Quirky only begins to describe some affs (Systems last year) or some of their neg strats. They consistently do well though, which is a testament to their work ethic. Furthermore, considering they go to a school in the middle of nowhere and have maybe all of 4 people in their prep circle, if even that many, I'm psyched that they did well this past weekend. Still, doing well at UNT doesn't truly correlate to being one of the best in Texas, yet I do think they deserve some credit for surviving the slog of stellar Dallas teams, namely Jesuit. 

Just some brief, rambling thoughts I had between my classes today.

- Hunter

thanks hunter! miss you and the countless Ls i took against you haha! come judge on the circuit soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know if making any quality judgments right now on debaters is accurate. St. Marks was ruff for us because it was literally the week of the PSAT so we went into St. Marks with barely any prep. Keep yo eyes on Coppell DR tho these next two years  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shreyasr711 said:

Also, I don't know if making any quality judgments right now on debaters is accurate. St. Marks was ruff for us because it was literally the week of the PSAT so we went into St. Marks with barely any prep. Keep yo eyes on Coppell DR tho these next two years  :)

UwU a wild shreyas appeared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 3:13 PM, VishvakBandi said:

Bump. Does anyone feel like rankings have changed after hockaday?

I'm going to admit it, I was wrong about Coppell DR, especially what I said about them and Greenhill AE earlier. I honestly think they have a legitimate chance of going deep into TFA elims and if they win the UT tournament by pulling a Westside NP type performance, I might give them a very good shot of breaking at the ToC. I'm scared to see how good they are next year.

I've admittedly been biased against Coppell DR the past few months of the season. The last memories I have Coppell DR was Shreyas spreading through 10-off every debate round when he was with Lucy on the Education topic and Het reading off 10 Peterson 14 cards while reading a ZTP policy Aff and those memories clouded my judgement when evaluating their skills and progress come to the Junior year of debate.  After they beat a legit Top-5 team in the country (Greenhill AE) in finals of Hockaday and slugged it out with multiple well-funded private school teams the past few months, I think that I misjudged them. They put in mad work at Wake this past Summer and I think their monstrous leap can be a lesson to every debater that it's not about going to camp or what camp but how much work you put in that makes you a better debater. It also shows that going out of your comfort zone can be an effective way of maximizing your skills i.e. Shreyas going from reading ZTP's on Education to straight-up Moten and Anti-Blackness. Congrats Shreyas and Het, and keep making the North Texas circuit proud.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TestNav said:

Who do y’all think are the top Texas teams right now?

I'll have my obvious biases, as I do go to coppell, but I think the top 10 teams in Texas right now are

1. Greenhill AE

2. Coppell DR

3. Hendrickson GS

4. Jesuit HM/Highland Park ML

5. Westwood BS

6. Greenhill LW

7. Woodlands RM

8. Kinkaid HK

9. LASA CU

10. Jesuit HT/St Marks RV

 

I really don't want to take time to justify myself for all of these, but these are my thoughts rn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VishvakBandi said:

I'll have my obvious biases, as I do go to coppell, but I think the top 10 teams in Texas right now are

1. Greenhill AE

2. Coppell DR

3. Hendrickson GS

4. Jesuit HM/Highland Park ML

5. Westwood BS

6. Greenhill LW

7. Woodlands RM

8. Kinkaid HK

9. LASA CU

10. Jesuit HT/St Marks RV

 

I really don't want to take time to justify myself for all of these, but these are my thoughts rn.

u r very qualified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, VishvakBandi said:

I'll have my obvious biases, as I do go to coppell, but I think the top 10 teams in Texas right now are

1. Greenhill AE

2. Coppell DR

3. Hendrickson GS

4. Jesuit HM/Highland Park ML

5. Westwood BS

6. Greenhill LW

7. Woodlands RM

8. Kinkaid HK

9. LASA CU

10. Jesuit HT/St Marks RV

 

I really don't want to take time to justify myself for all of these, but these are my thoughts rn.

I think winning UT should at least place Westwood in the #4 spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rocketlizard74 said:

I think winning UT should at least place Westwood in the #4 spot.

Jesuit HM has had sustained success ever since their Semis performance at Greenhill, often considered one of the toughest Octas bid tournaments in the 1st semester. Westwood BS had a phenomenal run at the UT tournament but I think that soft brackets had some weaker teams do better with higher seeds, and harder prelim rounds had top tier threats gone by prelims or doubles. Plus, the finals round was held at the RR after two pretty brutal days of debating, so I don't know if it's extremely indicative of whether they were better than Coppell DR or not. In addition, Jesuit's bid count is around 3 (I think) and this is Westwood's 1st bid. I do think Highland Park should be a bit lower since they haven't gone to very many tournaments and it's yet to see if they can pull of a deep run in one of the tougher octas bid tournaments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IHere are my updated rankings from VishvakBandi's after TFA state:

1. Greenhill AE

2/3. Coppell DR/Westwood BS (talk at TFA was that the prelim round between the 2 was basically a coin toss)

4. Woodlands MR

5. Hendrickson GS

6. Jesuit HM

7. Jesuit HT

8. Greenhill LW

9. Kinkaid HK

10. LASA CU

 

Edited by lockedinspace

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...