Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eapen last won the day on August 25 2010

Eapen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

128 Excellent

About Eapen

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/03/1984

Profile Information

  • Name
    Eapen Thampy
  • School
    University of Missouri-Columbia
  • Biography
    college freshman, debater and Shuman groupie
  • Location
    St. Louis/Columbia, Missouri
  • Interests
    debate, soccer, Mickey Klebanov
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. Happy birthday Eapen!

  2. Happy B-Day Eapen!

  3. http://forfeiturereform.com/2010/11/16/columbia-police-department-swat-raids-in-columbia-missouri-2007-may-2010/
  4. Eapen

    Vince Pollock?

    Anyone know anything?
  5. Thanks for all the helpful tips. Keep them coming. I'll be sending out resumes in a month or so and flying into DC to meet some people.
  6. I respond to phantomoutlaw's comments here: http://ducksandeconomics.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/from-the-comments-on-rand-pauls-naive-libertarianism/
  7. I don't have the right to dictate anything, Hyland. I just started a thread. I only ask that it be kept on topic. As a moderator, that is a standard that I enforced whenever a poster made a reasonable request.
  8. I was one of the first people to start taking cross-x seriously and ended up moderating the site for a couple years. I just hoped that people would respect that this thread, however inconsequential, represented a question that I hoped would be responded to with a little courtesy and not "Don't call me out for hijacking your attempts to find employment". If you want to talk about debate style, please, post somewhere else. I would just like to get a couple tips on where to search. Maybe if Hyland wants to be more than passingly snide you could post a list of schools I should call? Names?
  9. Will posters please limit discussion here to stuff that will help me find a job in DC? If you want to whine about your debate style and how people want to make you change it, that's fine, just please don't hijack my efforts to find employment.
  10. Yesterday I went to St. Louis to meet with scholars at the Show-Me Institute, a libertarian think tank in Missouri, to discuss how my work on civil asset forfeiture might fit in with their own research on forfeiture and if there is any room for collaboration. Currently, the Missouri Record and Reason magazine have expressed interested in a shorter, softer, more journalistic analysis on forfeiture reform. The Show-Me Institute is interested most specifically in my work on forfeiture in Missouri and I will be sending them a couple drafts on forfeiture law in Missouri. I am also in the process of talking to CATO about policy work from a federal perspective on forfeiture and some well-regarded constitutional law scholars about co-authoring a law review article. My partner Mickey Klebanov and I cut and ran an affirmative advocating the reform of civil forfeiture laws on the privacy topic about 9 years ago. It was a great affirmative then and now I am in a place to use all that knowledge in real work on the subject, particularly with regards to affecting real-life change. As you might imagine, this is immensely satisfying work for me; I don't think I would be nearly as happy if I had chosen another path and entered finance, for instance. As an aside, another ex-debater has been of immense help with my efforts to study and research Missouri forfeiture provisions: our current State Auditor, Susan Montee, to whom I am very grateful.
  11. Erroneous, Shuman. Missouri high school debate is full of coaches who have never debated in college or even seen a college policy round. Or if they have, their familiarity is negligible. Oftentimes their opposition to change is predicated on not wanting to have to change the status quo because they see nothing wrong with it. The primary argument is the poorly articulated claim that oral RFDs take too long in a world where tournaments often run late. The reality is that tournaments run late and this has nothing to do with oral RFDs. Additionally, this argument assumes away the silliness inherent in the notion that it's ok to let judges take time to write a ballot (which is often useless) but not to simply make an official note of the decision and deliver the RFD orally. In any case, we don't seek to end controversial decisions. Even correct decisions are often controversial. But we seek to end bad decisions, which are a different thing entirely.
  12. You know, once I lost a critical break round at a high school tournament that I'd worked for literally months to prepare for. One of the judges on the 2-1 panel wrote some comments about how I moved my arms too fast and how my partner's tie was sloppily tied. There was nothing that I could interpret as an RFD. Perhaps it's good that not mandating oral disclosure prevented that judge from telling us that because we were clumsy adolescent high schoolers who hadn't quite mastered the art of dressing well we had wasted hours and hours of cutting cards and having practice debate rounds. We lost the round to opponents who had dropped almost every offensive argument in the round after the 1ar and who didn't have a case specific card to read against our affirmative, which we had spent months writing. Oral disclosure provides an important check on judges. Why is this important? because debate is an educational experience and the judge has a critical role in that. How does oral disclosure check bad decisions? Because if a judge knows they have to present a decision they might be questioned about they are more incentivized to A) actually listen to the round and present a decision that is reasoned. If judges make a bad decision, or an incoherent decision, I see nothing wrong with questioning that, even vigorously. Debaters are typically intelligent people who understand they represent the elite of their school and who operate with the understanding that their participation is contingent on respectful behavior. It is hard to understand how providing students with appropriate feedback would change that dynamic.
  13. You present one instance of debaters arguing inappropriately with judges in a tournament that featured literally hundreds of rounds of competition between teams. There are what, 200 odd policy teams at nationals? Over 8 rounds of prelim competition that is roughly 800 rounds. Even if I don't count outrounds, your observation is statistically insignificant.
  14. I do read your posts but I wasn't clear on what precisely you meant since my first comments was that you were probably excluded from the policy judging pool because you had a policy team. In any case there is the stipulation that excludes you from the policy judging pool and after whcih they try to match preferences as best they can (IE if you prioritized LD over PUF). What are the practical obstacles to Randy Pierce or anyone else representing MSHSAA from bringing a laptop and a scheduling program to the tournament? Dennis Kane at Marquette does it. I defend only myself because I'm not sure if I can speak for everyone else on the circuit. But I think that even immature former debater are vastly better critics on average than the lays in the judging pool. And extend my argument that oral RFDs have strong implicit checks on immaturity being expressed in meaningful ways. I said I will defend that my views on how debate should be organized as a process is wiser than most tournament hosts. Most tournament hosts are debate coaches but most debate coaches are not tournament hosts. Perhaps we should collate this discussion into a letter of concern. IE stop talking about action and do something. I am leaving Missouri in 3 months so my participation in that process is unlikely.
  • Create New...