Jump to content

KCalderwood

Member
  • Content Count

    1889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Good

About KCalderwood

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame
  • Birthday 02/02/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Name
    Kevin Calderwood
  • Interests
    Debate, Poker, Politics
  1. i thought this thread was going to be about david cook
  2. Not to take anything away from what Nick and Evan accomplished last year at NFLs, but I think Nick would tell you that the panels he debated in front of some of the better teams (especially in early outrounds) were more indicative of slower, Missouri-style debate, then anything resembling what it means to be competitive on the national circuit. Success at NFLs, although obviously better than success at state, falls victim to a lot of the same problems as the state tournament. The NFL tournament is run nearly the same in prelims (two judge panels, no power matching, random pairing), and judges are committed for so long that a lot of bad judges are judging deeper outrounds.
  3. And a lot of these people are the same ones that think we should ban critiques and counterplans, or create separate divisions of debate for traditional and contemporary debate that seeks to create artificial divides in an already stretched community that seeks to eliminate advanced forms of debate from existing within the state. Just from the perspective who has experienced debate tournaments from the most conservative in missouri to the most liberal on the national circuit. First, clearing all winning records completely removes ALL inequities (except for pull ups caused by power-matching) regarding tie breakers because there would be no tie-breakers- if you were 5-3, you would clear period. Second, not clearing winning records moots the importance of prelims because it completely devalues the importance of having a 2 two judge panel. If 5 judges are not enough to produce a winner, then why does it even matter if it is a one or two judge panel? It is just nonsensical. Third, power-matching does solve scheduling inequities because a 3-3 does not have to debate a 6-0 in the fourth debate. It makes every round more important and fair. I have not seen the opposition ballot breakdowns, but I imagine that some have been pretty severe- I have seen some pretty ridiculously easy schedules at the state tournament. Hire more judges. It does not contradict anything. Rounds 1-2 should be randomly paired by a computer, and 3 and 4 via power matching. Judges should also be RANDOMLY assignment, which means coaches cannot control the style of debate by MANDATING that only ONE hired judge can be on a panel in prelims and outrounds. The manipulation of judging panels at the state tournament is absolutely ridiculous.
  4. This is kind of ridiculous on all fronts because there have been zero changes to the format of the state tournament in a long time, and there are just as, if not more important, changes to be made to it then the quality of the judging pool. First, the tournament should be power-matched. My senior year we debated a 6-0 team in the 4th debate. There is no reason why this should happen, especially in a world in which each of the last three years a 5-3 team has cleared. Also, it unfairly protects teams seeds that are 6-0 and might debate an 0-6 in the last debate. It completely messes up the bracket, and is unfair to anyone who is out on the bubble, or has a low seed in outrounds. Second, if you are going to put two judges in a debate, clear all the winning records. There is no reason to run a tournament that degrades the quality of the pool by making two judges judge each debate if there ballots do not end up counting anyways. Why is the second judge necessary if winning a majority of those judges ballots means that I don't clear? Third, the rounds should be randomly paired, and judges randomly assignment by a computer. We should probably ensure the fairness of the tournament based on a random assignment by a computer system. Breaks should also be based off of speaker points, not speaker ranks (although this should not be a problem because you will clear all winning records).
  5. Hello, The Southern Illinois University-Carbondale debate team is currently recruiting for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic school years. We participate in parliamentary debate, and as a former policy school, we have a large budget and amazing institutional support. The team is nationally competitive, and we travel to California, Colorado, the Pacific Northwest, and several states in the Midwest. In 2008, we won the prestigious National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence, had teams in semifinals and quarterfinals of the National Parliamentary Debate Association Championship tournament, and placed 1st and 3rd in the individual speaker awards. Our scholarships cover full tuition waivers, and a substantial living stipend. If you are interested in debating in college, parliamentary debate can be a great opportunity for you! Any questions can be directed to either me or the Director of Debate, Dr. Todd Graham. Thanks, Kevin Calderwood Southern Illinois University Debate kjcalder@siu.edu AFGolfer1987 Dr. Todd Graham Director of Debate Southern Illinois University tgraham@siu.edu
  6. I don't know what Parkview's problem with this affirmative is. Three premises seem to back up my argument- 1: Debate is a game. 2: People employ strategic decisions to win at games. 3: You could not come up with a strategic defense of traditional debate. If you warrant your arguments about how performance is destroying debate (I generally dislike performance, but understand its strategic usefulness in debate), are as quality as the warrants you made in this specific round about how performance is destroying debate I fully understand why you should have lost. This post is completely laughable. You obviously understand nothing about debate as a competition or an educational activity, and certainly not the pedagogical aspects of arguing for things you truly believe in. First, you make assumptions about cases that are topical or not topical. A case is not non-topical until you win that argument in the debate. Chances are you cannot win that argument if your teammates from Parkview leave the room. Additionally, there is very good, specific literature, written by Judith Butler about women's roles in the realm of international relation that teams use to criticize topicality. Second, you assume that they have to change something in the real world for them to actually make a difference. You do not get to decide whether they have learned something from their activism, and you certainly shouldn't "grade" their performance based on the number of judges or people have joined their movement. Debate is a training ground for activism, and performance studies is (sadly to me), a growing form of activism in academia, the media (the colbert report and jon stewart are both ironic and satirical most of the time), and among political groups. Just because they make arguments as to why their performance can change the world does not mean they are also not in the activity to be competitive. Third, so what is the big deal if they run their affirmative only as a competitive argument? I'm sure you make arguments all the time in debate that you truly do not believe in. Who cares if their performance might be disingenuous? I don't understand the impact to this "argument".
  7. save yourself from this worthless tournament and convince tuckness to take you to marquette so you can actually debate
  8. Marquette High School is hosting a tournament February 15-16 Usually has top notch judges I'm sure the washburn crew will be invited, but we don't want to dilute the pool with too many lay judges
  9. coaches fear that if college students judge debate rounds we will ruin debate by making it fast, technical, and force debaters to debate in certain ways to win ballots. which is the truly ironic part because none of us care if people go slow, read case arguments, or even advocate stock issues- i have had to vote in that paradigm many times. our position is not that we are objective, we have conceded that no one is. we contend that we make for better judges because we will, like, you know, listen to people's arguments and evaluate the warrants made in a round instead of not voting on topicality just because "you know they were topical!!!".
  10. is that second one a link to the missouri forum on cross-x?
  11. KCalderwood

    Pattonville

    You were also doing some weird, ritualistic, dance outside that kind of freaked Adam and I out.. And were the bow ties in honor of Paul Simon?
  12. I would not say anyone is completely objective - we are all human - but it is insulting because we actually care about debate getting better, and when we can't judge we lose an opportunity to help out an activity that shaped a lot of our lives, or at least influenced them greatly. In a word, though, "yes"
  13. KCalderwood

    Pattonville

    the judges chair gave us ballots, and every coach i ran into was cool with it the roads were perfectly fine... weird... i mean there was ice on my windshield, but that was it. Oh, well... springfield-central had already closed out one side of the sems bracket from what it looked like
  14. KCalderwood

    Pattonville

    Quarters: Springfield-Central BP defeats Kickapoo LS on a 3-0 (Calderwood, Testerman, Wedgeworth)
  15. You don't think Kyle and I (and Adam, now) are frustrated every time there is a tournament that does not allow us to judge because of our age? Jace has good reason for what he is saying insofar as it is his word. The sad part of MO high school debate is that I could be signed up to judge all those things, and then a tournament director can remove you from judging those rounds (the best example is from kickapoo, where i was actually in direct contact with sparkman) No, I will not reconsider making a 6 hour drive before finals week to judge a tournament where i probably won't get ballots. The issue is that MOST tournament directors will push ballots to community judges first, and then *maybe* there is a ballot or two left for college students. i obviously think that if liberty is truly allowing smart people to judge debates, then that is a good thing, but with what kyle said last year about HOA is true, i'm skeptical
×
×
  • Create New...