Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KCalderwood

  1. 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.

  2. Just to give y'all a different perspective, here's some of the coaches' thinking that has led to these rules in the first place (stuff like this always comes up at the biannual rules meetings coaches are required to attend)...


    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.


    This cuts both ways, of course. Who had the better tournament: a 5-3 team which lost 0-2 against another 5-1 in the 4th round, or a team that was 3-3 and beat another 3-3 in the 4th round? Power-matching will only magnify the importance of tie-breakers that we all agree are less than ideal. Power-matching does not solve inequities in schedule quality, it simply replaces those inequities with other, different ones which are equally problematic...If things are still operating the way they did when I was there, 32 teams participate at state. Advancing one quarter of those teams increases the odds that the teams clearing are the best of the best; advancing anywhere from one-third to one-half of the field decreases those odds, and to some extent moots the importance of the prelims...


    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.


    As for the two-judge thing: Three-judge panels in prelims would be ideal, but the size of the pool won't allow it. We went away from one-judge prelims (at District AND State) to cut down on the "random bullet" problem. I don't disagree that going 5-3 looks like a good result, but if there were only single-judge rounds that 5-3 team could actually be anywhere from 4-0 good to 1-3 not-so-much. In general, coaches don't feel like 5-3 is as reliable an indicator of quality as 6-2, 7-1, or 8-0 are, and I agree with them...


    Hire more judges.


    This seems to contradict your earlier interest in power-matching. Which do you prefer?This is a VERY old and contentious issue.


    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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.



    Kevin Calderwood

    Southern Illinois University Debate





    Dr. Todd Graham

    Director of Debate

    Southern Illinois University


  5. 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.


    Does this team really ever change anything? Do they convince judges to shift the way they observe the world? Are we having assorted individuals thinking about the importance of stopping gender discrimination? I doubt that, and that's what makes this problematic. These kids could clearly see that, and if so, that means they know they run a flawed plan, with the intent of having a case that is, as has been discussed, non-topical, but in this instance, they have such a ridiculously off-topic case for that exact reason: To catch opponents unawares and exploit their unreadiness for the purpose of winning. If they truly wanted the female empowerment created by such integration, they could run (And INSANELY easily so) a case dealing with women. PATHWAY, or just Female Condoms, FGM. I'm certain numerous affirmatives that are not those have female empowerment advantages. That they don't makes their rationale for what they do plain as day.


    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".

    • Upvote 1

  6. One's not worth going to if you're from Kansas....debate infront of a mirror kid, it will be a better round.


    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 ;)

  7. 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!!!".

  8. Haha, interesting. Nick Ramsey contrived the idea at some random tournament, and it stuck. I don't think we'll ever do it again, though. We all kind of felt the day consisted of enough 'douchebagery' (via bow ties) to last a lifetime.


    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?

  9. so...


    i've never been in a college debater's situation, but let me see if i have this right. a bunch are upset because when there is a tournament, they are told they can't judge, and when they are told they can, they end up judging prose/poetry, only to get to the room and have been struck by some dumb coach. and this is because missouri is a terrible place to debate, because no coaches ever want college judges to debate.


    and this is insulting because many college judges are completely objective in their decision making process, and would never vote down any team for anything that the team had done outside of the debate round.


    is this right?


    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"

  10. what happened to not judgeing?


    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

  11. I apologize if my post sounded antagonizing. I was just frustrated, because Jace is legitimately trying to make Liberty a good tournament. I am sure that you've exprienced some atrocious things, in your efforts to give back to MO and I'm sorry that that happened. But all I was saying is that, Jace has good reason for what he is saying, because when we recruit judges at Liberty, you are allowed to put your preference on the form and the judges chairs make every effort to meet that preference.


    I'm sorry that you feel that way about voting for me, but that is besides the point. I will definitely give back to MO debate, when I can (because I'm kind of far away), and I'm sure that I will experience what you have, but I don't think that is a reason to boycott all tournaments.


    I hope you will reconsider.


    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

  12. I think this is hilarious. People complain that they can't judge at tournaments, but when one offers them an opportunity to judge without any strings attached, they refuse to do so. I think you should reconsider, because when Jace says there aren't any strings attached, there really aren't. You can all judge Champ CX, although I would advise that you save yourself for outrounds. Additionally, I know two years ago, we had a sick panel for finals.


    this post makes me sad i ever had to vote for you... luckily it was on bad arguments that only a sophisticated college student that is not a moron at debate would vote for (maybe proving my argument).


    i do not refuse to judge at liberty for any personal reason, only that the situation that kyle presents is too common place. People say there are zero strings attached, but when you get there it is entirely different. i will not drive to kansas city just because there is some guarantee that we will be allowed to judge. you wholly misconstrue our argument.


    if liberty is different and allows anyone to judge like good tournaments like parkview and marquette (funny how this is two schools that adam and i call our alma maters), then i apologize.


    but i have gone to tournaments that say they will allow you to judge, and then don't. if you ever actually give back to missouri high school debate you will realize what i am talking about.


    i have never had anything against you, zain, but you have also never been through what some of have (in regards to attempting to give back to mo high school debate).




  13. I agree with Kyle. Until people who take judging high school debate seriously and actually attempt to give back to the debate community are allowed to judge with no strings attached no one should go out of their way to help out. I would have not said this the last two years, but after three years of giving back I am disgusted at the way we are treated.


    And by "people" i mean college students who actually know what the hell they are doing

  14. Dear Missouri High School Debaters,


    Adam and I were going to forfeit our time the weekend before finals in an attempt to give back to the high school debate community.


    Sadly, the Pattonville tournament is not allowing any "kids" to judge policy debate.




    Adam and Kevin

  15. from a factual perspective (not a "hate" of carthage)...this is just impossible.

    christian being a senior means that his sophomore year would've been 2005...

    2005 Justin Todd and Jamie P. won.

    2006 Brynden and Joel won.

    2007 again they won.


    perhaps it was 04 and he was just an incredible freshman or maybe this is christian's fifth year of debate...or maybe they won reg. it is just no...jamie remarked at the tournament about this being the 3rd year in a row for nixa winning hillcrest.


    Parkview over Greenwood in 2004... YEAH BABY!


    -Adam Testerman

  16. LOL... wow... ok if you dont know the situations that occured you should ask Josh Campfield. He could tell you why his former team isnt going since he and a few others were the ones that caused it, I never said it was Jenks fault. I will not be in attendance, I have a conflict with choir. Tyler though, will be in attendance. Also, Kevin, what did I do to you?


    Why did you feel the need to bring up that Fort Osage will not be attending this tournament because of situations last year?

  • Create New...