Jump to content

debatedick15

Member
  • Content Count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About debatedick15

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 12/23/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.geocities.com/debatedick15
  • AIM
    debatedick15

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jonathan
  • School
    Shebizzle Norf
  • Location
    homeless
  • Interests
    Debate/Extemp
  • Occupation
    Running Laps
  1. debatedick15

    STOC

    First, props to Alex for making the point that I was going to make--Zamit proved several times that they could win in-front of any panel. Those two players were chill enough to go for the arguments that the judges needed to hear, and they were smart enough to make sensible, adapted arguments based on the traditional or modern nature of the panel. If the rest of Wisconsin (past and present) could employ the intelligence that Zack and Amit displayedm, especially in regards to judge adaptation and in-round persuasion...this conversation about what is 'good debate' wouldn't even exist. Second, Mr. Hanson's argument only proves another reason that a National approach is the best framework for Wisconsin debate. I really hate to sound like an elitist, because I'm someone who believes that debate is best when both teams have a realistic chance of winning the round. But to even fathom that Zack and Amit would legitimately loose a round to ANY medicore V4 OR VSS team is laughable at best. I guess I've only personally seen Zack and Amit debate twice, but 1) twice was enough to realize these kids knew how to debate and 2) their records both in-state and nationally speak volumes about their abilities. I probably sound arrogant for saying this, but with proper adjudication, there were only a couple of teams that could've put up a fight against Zack and Amit last year (Neenah, Madison West come to mind). Either the argument that a V4 team could beat Zack and Amit is wrong, or if the argument is true, then it's another reason that Wisconsin needs higher judging standards. I mean, sure, if Zack and Amit debated in a 'national' way (and the regional/national dichotomy is attrocious too, but that's inevitable i suppose) in front of 'regional' judges against a team that adapted to a 'regional' framework, then Zack and Amit would probably recieve a slip of paper that said they lost. But 1) They adapted and they did it well--State TOC finals is always an interesting mix of judges because of the constraints created by affiliation. But Zack still won the STOC 3 times (Twice with Amit), and to achieve those victories, Brookfield needed to utilize adaptation. And they did. And 2) The fact that a team, in order to win in Wisconsin, should have to debate in an undesirable/less-comfortable way only proves that, in an ideal world, Wisconsin would have national-calibur judges available for all tournaments (especially stoc). I mean absolutely no harm to any V4 OR VSS state champion past or present--even qualifying for state is an accomplishment in itself, and to go another tier beyond that is excellent. Every once in a very long while, however, Wisconsin is blessed with a team for the ages. Brookfield Central BB, ranks in Wisconsin debate history among the elites--primarily because they worked hard, were intelligent, and certainly because they had a nack for out-debating the majority of their competition. Zack and Amit created for themselves an incredible legacy--one that shouldn't be insulted nor bastardized by claims that 'any old team could beat them'. That's all.
  2. Copied from WFD Jonathan *|* December 15th, 2005 at 7:44 pm 1> Best Debater Overall: Guarav. Damn. a) Best Senior Debater…Those Brookfield kids and Aaron are pretty impressive. Best Junior Debater…G-bhat c) Best Sophomore Debater…Osahon d) Best Fresh(wo)man Debater…I hear the BC machine has some impressive Novi, and Sheboygan North has some kid named Laurel Mills. Remember that name. e) Most Improved Debater…There’s like a 5.5-way tie here: Nicole Liakopolus, Aaron Champagne, Guarav, the Asad twins, and Nick Brown. f) Debater With Most Potential…Osahon or Nick h) Best Team/Pair…Brookfield Central TY/LW 2> Best Round Overall: State Finals….going for theory made it memorable. a) Best Round You Watched…state finals. that analysis is above Best Round You Debated In…The 5 rounds against Nicole and Max this year were all really close and, not to be blunt, but very highly competitive. 3> Best Program Overall–this year, it was brookfield central, but I would venture to guess that next year, Marquette will dominate. a) Best Program For Novices…Allison seems to do well with the Brookfield Novices. Best New Program…Is Wausau West new? If they are, then Wausau by default. c) Most Improved Program…Rufus King. Fo’ sheesh. d) Program You’d Most Like To Debate For (Other Than Yours)…Marquette….without the whole ‘forced mass’ thing. 4> Best Argument a) Best Affirmative Case…Padilla v. Hanft. Sorry, but I really liked that case. Aaron’s Nayar affirmative was neat, too. Best Counterplan…Consult. c) Best Disadvantage…Relations d) Best Kritik…I am not familiar with the concept of this, how you say, kritik. e) Best T/Theory Argument…ASPEC 5> Best Specific Skills a) Best 1NC…Its a 1nc. But Tyler’s always clear, and he gets alot of ink on the flow Best 2AC…Asad: he makes effecient, clear arguments, and they’re usually tough to answer. c) Best 2NC…Guarav. d) Best 1NR…Tyler can throw down on the T debate d.5) Best 1AR…Carly–Gonzo taught her well e) Best 2NR…Guarav. f) Best 2AR…Who flows those things anyway? g) Fastest Debater…Annie Chen…work on the clarity, though . h) Funniest Debater…Nick Brown makes me laugh. Alot. And Kettler's a machine. 6> Other Stuff a) Favorite Tournament (in-state)…Appleton East Favorite Tournament (out-of-state)…The Glenbrooks c) Favorite Judge/Critic…Bill Batterman and Kevin Lennon know what’s up. And had he judged more in the state, I’m sure Manav Bhatnagar would be mentioned in this category too. d) Weirdest Round You Saw/Debated In…The Multitude will meet at Noah’s house. ’nuff said e) Best Non-Debate Experience at a Debate Tournament…Jeremy Alexander literally tackled me in the hallway of an Illinois hotel. That was quite the experience. f) Funniest Thing You Stumbled Upon While Researching…Noah and I used to read this Leslie evidence that said deforestation caused an ecological ‘gigadeath’. That, or “brazil key to prevent disasterous consequences”. g) Thanks Wisconsin Debate, for four pretty sweet years of debate.
  3. Yeah, the Asads probably would've broke...they're pretty sweet speakers. Jerks.
  4. Disclaimer: These results are only what I remember folks telling me yesterday night when I was operating on about 4 hours of sleep. Please correct me if any of these are incorrect. Rufus King AA (Asads): 4-3 Rufus King SW (Julia and Taylor): 2-5 Neenah OO (Osahon and Ivie): 4-3 Marquette BJ (Guarav and Tyler): 4-3 Marquette KW (Kettler and Nolan): 2-5 Appleton East AW (Wage and Ackell): 2-5 Appleton West EM (Johnny and Marsha): 3-4 Sheboygan North TV (Jon and Noah): 2-5 Brookfield Central LW (Carly and Andy): 3-4 Brookfield Central TY (Alex and Ann) 6-1
  5. List of who has all responded? Sheboygan North TV
  6. I'm hesitant to make any sort of comment regarding this controversial issue, so I pre-empt all criticisms by saying that I think that this discussion is one of merit, one of importance. Further, I believe that the 2005-2006 V4 v. VSS discussion has been carried out in a respectable, constructive manner--something that I can't say for years past. Each and every Wisconsin debater and debate coach is entitled to her own opinion. Similar to a topicality debate, Four Person versus Switch-Side is a question of competing interpretations--"speed, spread, generic K" versus "nuclear war bad, juuuuudge". As a person who competed for two years in Varsity Four-Person and (forthcoming) two years in Switch-Side, I feel compelled to interject. For the record, I am an avid proponent of Wisconsin's move to an exclusively two-person policy infrastructure. While that probably won't happen for several years if ever, I think the arguments that have been made against VSS simply are not true. Go to the proper. 1) Let's talk about 'speed and spread'. While I will agree that speed is a pretty prevelent part of VSS debate, it's certainly not essential. In Wisconsin alone, I know of several VSS debaters/teams that either a) don't go 'too' fast don't use speed at all and still do very well. The Wisconsin VSS circuit has grown in the past couple of years. In seasons past, the team that was able to put the most in on a page in eight minutes often won; in certain cases, the faster team will still win. However, I would argue that those teams don't win simply because they're 'faster'. Quality versus quantity. Any reasonable VSS debater would tell you that it is much more difficult to answer 5 really strategic responses than it is to answer 36 really silly arguments. In specific regard to Mr. Hanson's argument, speed isn't necessary when all a debater has to do is say 'group the 1 through 36, these arguments are embarrassing ABC'. When a person makes arbitrary criticisms of 'speed and spread' without ever telling the other side what 'speed and spread' really are, the other side can't know exactly how to respond. I understand the objections to speed, however. Interesting story, my first ever 'speed n' spread' round (Nathan Hale tournament sophomore year), I debated David Meyers and Jeremy Harris from Brookfield Central. I remember very clearly how absolutely obscene they sounded. I couldn't for the life of me understand what they were saying (except the occasional "russia solves extinction"), and worse, I had no idea how to respond to anything these guys were saying. One of the most humiliating rounds of my life, no doubt. No one enjoys that experience, and as someone who hopes to coach after graduation, I will always do my best to make sure that my debaters don't have to be tried by fire. The ironic part of my story is that the horrendous round described above was in the Varsity Four Division. Even if speed and spread are terrible tools of the devil, teams will always exist that debate quickly. That doesn't mean that the other team must use speed to the same degree, or at all for that matter. As long as you can keep a decent flow of the speedy arguments (which is never a problem given the liberal nature of VSS), you can answer their arguments at your own pace. Even if they read 41 new arguments on a flow, its better to make 5 good arguments and drop some of their arguments than to get flustered trying to answer every one of their points. 2) Then you say "generic K". And by Generic K, I assume you are referring to the criticism. If you meant something different, please respond, as this portion will be irrelevent if you weren't referring to the critique. First, this year Noah and I have debated against exactly two critiques. In octafinals at Marquette, Glenbrook South read an affirmative that argued Breaking Down Guantanamo would solve the New International (Derrida), and in Prelims at Hortonville, SPASH read Empire against our Detention Affirmative. In fact, Noah and I have only read one critique all year--that was against SPASH's critique-ish Guantanamo Affirmative. As I read your posts, Mr. Hanson, I find that we probably don't agree on much. However, I think in the discussion of the critique debate, we would agree on alot more than we would both have guessed. I don't really keep secrets--I think that most critique debates are silly. That's only a personal opinion, and as a part of the VSS community, I realize that I will have to be prepared to argue the criticism. Pretty simply, I think that critiques are probably the most difficult argument to answer IF the link is hyper-specific and the story is coherent. I still, however, disagree with 'every round has a generic K'. I don't mean to sound as though I'm cutting down your authority on this question, but this season, I've seen more VSS rounds than you have (I think, please correct me if i'm wrong). The rounds that I've been part of have NOT, in fact, contained generic critiques. Most arguments this year are focused on softpower, relations, politics, the supreme court, and topicality. If a team does decide to read a critique, I think that's fine. As a matter of fact, this year more than last, I see more legitimacy to the critique because it's not being run every round. Not all VSS debates include a criticism, and when they do, VSS debaters best be prepared to defeat them. I personally believe that critiques are usually pretty easy to defeat, but that debate isn't here. 3) You say two arguments--this is just wrong. Affirmatives usually run with multiple advantages or multiple modules off of an advantage. Some even have more than one affirmative because they're just that well prepared. Negatives usually read a topicality argument or two, a disad or two, a counterplan and/or criticism, and put offense on the case. That's WAY more than two arguments, and most of the arguments made (especially Topicality and on case) aren't the same as the last round. Mr. Hanson, regardless of differences in our interpretations of 'good debate', it will be a shame to see you leave the Wisconsin Debate Community. You've done (from what I can tell) a fabulous job coaching Merill, You've been an asset to key discussions such as the one we're having right now. I wish you well in your future endeavors, and I appriciate your opinions. I only engage in this discussion to promote what I believe to be the most educational form of debate. Regards, Jonathan Voss Sheboygan North High Debate
  7. Noah and I won't be competing that weekend--budgetary constraints and Madison Memorial Prep.
  8. It's got lots of on-point Brazil evidence, including Geniune key, prior key, etc. Also, I have a slew of Con. Brazil backfiles that I guess I could send your way. AIM: Debatedick15
  9. There's this guy--Peter Hakim. He writes an Article called "The Reluctant Partner" in the Jan/Feb 2004 Foreign Affairs. Check it.
  10. Quick question, does anyone know if Neenah will be in attendence at Hortonville?
  11. Wisconsin Varsity Judging rules can be a beast. If you asked the debators, they would all be happy to have another qualified judge (as in, understands debate). Ah well, what can ya do?
  12. Sheboygan North TV (Jon Voss/Noah Trilling) Wausau West LM (Brad Larson/Mark Morgan) SPASH BL (Max Balhorn/Nicole Liakopoulos) SPASH CD (Annie Chen/Sally Debauche) SPASH TW (Andrew Tolsted/Eric Weitz) SPASH GH (Sam Glenzer/Robert Hintz) SPASH LV(Emily Langhorst/Nakisa Vazzadeh)? Appleton East AW (Will Ackell/Nick Wage) Appleton East AP (DJ Anderson/Anderw Palmbach) Appleton East HP (Haas/Powell) Any Other Takers? I'll update this list as confirmations come in.
×
×
  • Create New...